Education

Louisiana School to Female Students: Take a Pregnancy Test, or Leave

|

Honest to blog that is a dumb policy

At the Delhi Charter School, a state-funded K-12 school in northern Louisiana, students who are suspected of being pregnant are required to take a pregnancy test. According to the school's policy, if the results show up positive—or if she refuses to take a test—the student will be kicked out of the classroom, forced to finish from home if she decides to continue her education with the school.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union warned Delhi to drop their unconstitutional "Student Pregnancy Policy," or prepare for a lawsuit:

Besides violating Title IX, the policy is also in violation of the Constitution's due process right to procreate, and equal protection: it treats female students differently from male students and relies on archaic stereotypes linked to sex and pregnancy.

Pregnancy is the number one reason girls drop out of school, with 70 percent of pregnant teenagers leaving school.

Louisiana education officials are calling for end to the discriminatory policy. In a statement released Tuesday, the Louisiana State Department of Education said "We are requiring an immediate change to the policy." According to TODAY.com, the Delhi Charter School has until August 16 to provide documentation showing a change in policy.

Though the school maintains that there have been no complaints about the policy in the past, administrators say that the school is under legal review "to ensure that necessary revisions are made so that our school is in full compliance with constitutional law."

NEXT: A Weak White Supremacist Movement Is Even More Threatening Than a Strong One! Donate Now!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not sure I understand the intended result of the policy in the first place.

    1. Give girls more incentive to keep their legs closed I guess.

      1. Then I’m agin it.

    2. I’m with you on this one Fist: I feel like requiring the female student to complete her work from home might be intended to isolate the student from various social pressures at school, allowing the child to have a healthy baby.

      Alternatively… well, I don’t have an alternative suggestion.

    3. My first qusetion would be, ‘who is providing the tests and results?’. I smell cronyism. But it has become the norm for me that everytime a new mandatory anything comes out of a public anything, my cronyism detector goes into full on mode.

      1. This is the correct response. Always follow the money. Always.

        1. Is there anyway you can teach that to liberals, Epi? Cause if you can, you could become more legendary than the dog whisperer.

          1. You can try, but they’re probably too busy at the abortion clinic so they can graduate highschool with their friends.

    4. Pervy administrators?

    5. Its pretty obvious – 70% of pregnant teens drop out. If you allow these pregnant teens to stay in school then that percentage could drop and then where would the welfare office be?

    6. Shame female students. Because it never takes two to procreate.

      1. Oh here comes some bubbleheaded feminist to tell us about the War on Wimminz again.

      2. It takes two to procreate.

        It only take one to not-procreate.

  2. Pregnancy is the number one reason girls drop out of school, with 70 percent of pregnant teenagers leaving school.

    Only seventy percent? That is unacceptable!

  3. The question is how much freedom should we give charter schools. Should charter schools be held to the same rules government schools are held to or are they like private schools?

    I can see how starting a charter school in a poor area and saying “everyone who goes to this school agrees to not use drugs and not get pregnant” might produce a better learning environment. If you are offended by the offer, you don’t have to go to the school and can stay in regular school.

    1. A charter school IS a government school, at least in the two states where I know anything about them. (Maybe Louisiana is different.)

      They’re “independent” public schools that are using (per student) funds budgeted by the state and municipality.

      I can’t see how they can expel any student for engaging in lawful or protected activity.

      1. I think sex with a 17 year old is illegal if you’re 18 in Louisiana. Statutory rape or something.

        1. I doubt it. Most states’ age of consent laws put the consent at 16. If Louisiana is “progressive” in this regard, it would shock the hell out of me.

          Even if your statement were correct, the girl would not have been the one engaging in unlawful activity. The hypothetical man would have.

      2. Of course they are a government school. That is the entire issue. The whole point of a charter school and what makes them different from regular schools is that they don’t have to live by the same rules government schools do.

        For example, union rules are waived. They can demand that parents participate in their children’s education. You could never kick a kid out of regular public school for his parents not showing up for parent teacher conferences. But you can a charter school. That is how they work, the students and teachers both agree to waive a lot of the rights they have in normal schools in return for going there.

        So the question is do you agree with that? You seem to agree with the teachers’ unions in that all public schools must operate under the same rules and teachers and students can’t make such a bargain.

        1. The whole point of a charter school and what makes them different from regular schools is that they don’t have to live by the same rules government schools do.

          A state legislature can set whatever terms of employment it wants for any government institution.

          What it can’t do is make up whatever rules it wants as requirements for extension of a government service to the public (as opposed to its employees). It can’t say, “You can only attend this school or drive on this highway if you sign this paper saying you wave your right to vote” or something similar.

          I think a state law requiring public assistance recipients to be sterilized would be laughed out of court, for example.

          1. I think a state law requiring public assistance recipients to be sterilized would be laughed out of court, for example

            Unfortunately.

            1. You’re a progressive?

              1. Nah, he’s an idealist.

          2. But saying you can’t be pregnant is not the same as saying you must be sterilized.

            A rule that said any kid whose parents didn’t devote five ours a week to help them with homework and meeting with teachers was kicked out of school would be laughed out court too.

            What you are really saying Fluffy is that parents and students should not be free to contract with the state. The state is saying hey “we are going to try to run a new school by different rules, you agree to those rules and give it a try or stay in your own school, your choice.”

            Why shouldn’t students be able to make that deal? Do you think they are too stupid? Can’t be trusted? Don’t value their privacy enough? As long as they can go to regular school, I don’t see why you would object other than you think people can’t be trusted to make deals with the government.

            1. What you are really saying Fluffy is that parents and students should not be free to contract with the state. The state is saying hey “we are going to try to run a new school by different rules, you agree to those rules and give it a try or stay in your own school, your choice.”

              Why shouldn’t students be able to make that deal?

              Because the end of the deal where the state withholds a benefit if you don’t behave the way it wants is inherently coercive.

              I don’t think the state should be able to condition the extension of any benefit of any kind (outside of employment, in limited circumstances) on the waiver of a right.

              “Why shouldn’t the state be able to tax people and then hand out the money to people who agree to waive their rights?”

              1. Because the end of the deal where the state withholds a benefit if you don’t behave the way it wants is inherently coercive.

                No. the benefit here is going to a school where it is not acceptable to be pregnant. If you could show me that all of the other schools get less funding or are treated second class, you would have a point.

                But you can’t in this case. The whole point of a charter school is not that it is better funded but that it operates by different rules. The carrot here is going to a school where people agree to live under a given set of rules.

                So we are back to the original question, why can’t students bargain with the state and agree to abide by rules they think will help their education?

                You sound like Joe.

                1. That argument only holds up IF the students/parents agreed to the rules before they started going to the school.

                  1. That argument only holds up IF the students/parents agreed to the rules before they started going to the school.

                    Attendance at the school can be seen as assent to its rules.

              2. They can kick you out of the military for proseletyzing, adultery and attending political rallies (in uniform).

                All of which are legal (and some are protected) activities.

                1. To me the military counts as employment.

              3. Like employment, charter schools are a special, exclusive benefit, not something open to the public like a road or (more or less) a normal school.

            2. What you are really saying Fluffy is that parents and students should not be free to contract with the state.

              This is backwards. The problem is the state should not be free to contract with the parents and students.

              1. And once again, separation of school and state fixes the problem.

                Yall can tinker with “solutions”, I would fucking fix the fundamental flaw.

                1. vouchersvouchersvouchersvouchersvouchers

                2. Yeah, I think vouchers is the answer too.

      3. I can’t see how they can expel any student for engaging in lawful or protected activity.

        I think the problem here, Fluffy, is that they’re engaging in UNprotected activity.

        *rimshot*

        I am here all ze veek.

    2. It would be like me opening a charter school and telling people they’ll be expelled if I find out they attend church.

      1. Considering the school only gets funds per student that is actually enrolled, I don’t see why you have a problem with a school setting its own rules and abiding by them.

      2. Why not? If you don’t have to go there and agree to it up front. Again, a lot of charter schools require parents to show up and do things at the school. That isn’t allowed in regular schools.

        There are charter schools that are like military academies. Isn’t telling everyone to wear a uniform and march in order a bit of a violation of their first amendment rights? There are also charter schools that only admit one sex. What about those?

        1. Because no extension of a government benefit can be predicated on a citizen’s religious status, dude.

          This is really pretty basic.

          Vouchers are completely different. We’re talking about a state-run facility paid for by state funds. It’s literally no different from telling pregnant women they’re not allowed to use particular state roads. It pretty laughably violates equal protection. And if there’s one unenumerated right out there that the courts have consistently stood up for, it’s the right of childbearing.

          1. How are vouchers different?

          2. I think you’re missing the entire point of a charter school to start with.

          3. I am not talking about vouchers. We are talking about charter schools. And the benefit of “schooling” is not conditioned on anything. It is going to this particular school.

            And only admitting one sex to a school sure as hell violates equal protections. Yet, schools can do it because they are not conditioning access to education on it. They are only saying “this particular school goes by these rules, you can go if you like”. That is different and you know.

            And regardless of the law, at heart you are saying that students can’t bargain with the government. That they can’t agree to give up their rights in return for going to a different school. And strikes me as incredibly paternalistic.

            Has Tony hacked your account?

          4. It’s literally no different from telling pregnant women they’re not allowed to use particular state roads.

            I’d support that measure. I don’t want preggos gunking up the roads that I might be on with their baby goo and stuff. It’s a hazard to safe driving, worse than black-ice.

  4. If you take the government’s money, you have to play by their rules. That’s why they offer it so widely.

  5. If Michael Cera is the father of any baby, I immediately lose any suspension of disbelief.

  6. so…I never understood the body politic getting the vapors over something that has been going of for at least 100,000 years. A late high school girl is in her prime baby-makin stage. Not saying it is a smart idea to get pregnant nor that I wouldn’t be pissed as a father of a girl that got pregnant but seriously, less than 80 years ago having babies at 18 or less was pretty common. Still is in many countries. And while the argument of extended life span has merit in 1st world countries I don’t think it is enough to completely override thousands of years of evolution saying “your body is best designed to handle this massive trauma now…get busy.” This applies less to boys…we are prime baby makers for a very long time…oooh yeah.

    And I know MANY people that were very young when they had their children and are now 37 with kids in college…must be nice.

    1. That is because we have made babies luxury items that are nearly impossible for someone in their teens to own. Since the government was less involved, it was a lot easier to care for a kid back then.

      1. Oh right. Women wanting to have careers has nothing to do with it. Somehow government has to be to blame.

        I guess when all you have is a hammer…

        1. Yes, because John clearly stated that the reason he gave, which is very true, was to the exclusion of others, like women wanting careers. Right?

          Wait, no, he didn’t actually do that. Your bad.

          1. Give it a rest. There are about 50 more factors other than government that contributed to delaying child-bearing. Trying to shoehorn in “the government” is just lazy knee-jerking.

            1. Well, government made me choose to not have children, so nyah.

            2. Nobody’s trying to shoehorn in anything.

              1. Nobody’s trying to shoehorn in anything.

                Isn’t that what led to this issue in the first place?

                1. BADABING!

        2. Well, government caused the inflation that forces many households to have 2 workers, so…

        3. We’ve been moving the socially acceptable childbearing age up since long before women started to have careers.

          It’s probably more closely related to the infantilization of adolescents that started when the mass middle class got going in the latter half of the 19th century.

          First the urban middle class invented childhood, and then they liked it so much they decided to lengthen it.

          1. Also the demand for child labor went down. Before household appliances, running a house was a huge amount of work. You needed a lot of kids to get everything done. Unless you were rich and could hire help, it was very hard to keep a clean middle class household with just one kid. Now such labor is unnecessary so there is less reason to have big families.

            1. Having children used to be an asset. Now it is pretty much all liability. Keep dreaming if you think the little shits will help you much in your old age.

              1. Keep dreaming if you think the little shits will help you much in your old age.

                ^THIS^ They’ll probably just stick your ass in a home and let you drool and shit yourself until you finally shuffle off so they can spend that sweet sweet inheritance money.

                1. Yeah, and they will put you in the crappy medicare home too.

      2. Yes and no. I would say that this is more a function of our economic status as a culture in the US. In 3rd world countries babies are many and often due to high infant mortality and free labor…just like here in the early 1900s.

        Reason has some articles on how the richer a country the lower the birth rate. I think the cause/effect relationship needs to be examined further, but I am also always up for blaming the government.

        1. uhh to address the school issue so I don’t get ban hammered, Gov. Money Gov. Rules…eliminate public schools (of all types but I am open to transition through charter and voucher programs) eliminate this as a concern.

        2. (I will refresh before posting. I will refresh before posting)

    2. “And I know MANY people that were very young when they had their children and are now 37 with kids in college…must be nice.”

      Actually those folks potentially have the best of all possible worlds.

      A shitton of government benefits making it possible for you to not work and get an education for yourself while your kids are young, you enter the workforce in your late 20’s with a college degree as your kids get old enough to not need daycare any longer. Then when you are 35 and in your prime earning years your kids are out of the house already and you have more disposable income than you know what to do with.

      Basically if you’re gonna have kids the only 2 economically viable choices are to have them before you are 21 or after you are 35. Anywhere inbetween and you are just screwing yourself because you won’t have any period of your life where you make significant amounts of money and have no kids.

      1. I agree with this…we opted for door number 2. Of course I didnt know my wife back when door number 1 was an option. Only problem with 2 is DAMN kids take a lot of energy. They are like little tokamak reactors. They are like fusing iron in a star.

  7. Here, I’ll provide the alt-text for that picture:

    Juno who else made girls get a pregnancy test?

    1. No, the perfect alt-text would “Michael Cera…SCORE!”

  8. The intent of the policy is to reduce the number of pregnant students. What has happened in public schools is that pregnancy has become normalized, supported even, both institutionally and socially within the school, and guess what? We’ve been getting more of what we reward.

    If a private school (or, I think, even a quasi-private charter school) wants to say “We will not normalize, support, or celebrate pregnancy by our students, because we think doing so encourages all sorts of social pathologies”, I think that’s well within the bounds of rationality. If that means that a pregnant student gets to do their schoolwork at home while pregnant, OK.

    1. The policy punishes women only.

      Even if we assume that there’s a rational reason to expel students for getting pregnant (I don’t think there is), the school is making absolutely no effort to punish the male students who impregnate female students.

      That’s why this policy violates title IX.

      1. It’s that damn male gaze. Girls are powerless against it and turn into retarded jelly when it is cast upon them.

      2. Well Joe,

        No one made the girls agree to the policy. I am not sexist like you so I think girls and their parents are just as capable of making a rational choice as boys.

        Beyond that fine, throw out boys who get girls pregnant as well. I doubt the people who run the school would object tot hat. Now how you will find that out is another matter.

        1. What did I say or imply that was sexist? I think female and male students are equally irrational.

          The policy discriminates against women, period. Enforcing the policy with both female students and the male students that impregnated them is unfeasible. Therefore the policy has to go.

          1. did you ever stop to consider that perhaps an ancillary motive of the policy is to tell young folks that becoming parents while in high school is stupid and, often, self-defeating?

            We’re sitting here debating legalities and whether something is discriminatory, totally ignoring the societal cost of teenagers having babies. If the threat of expulsion prevents a few pregnancies, that sounds like a net gain.

            1. We’re sitting here debating legalities and whether something is discriminatory, totally ignoring the societal cost of teenagers having babies crimes. If the threat of expulsion instant execution by drones prevents a few pregnancies crimes, that sounds like a net gain.

              Does that logic work for you?

              1. no, because it’s not logic, unless on your planet, pregnancy is considered a crime. Here, especially among teens, we tend to look at it as a bad outcome.

                Charter schools are attended by choice, not by address. There are differences between them and rest of the public system.

                1. You are not getting the point.

                  You basically said “Damn the legalities! Full speed ahead! The social cost is too high to consider the law!”

                  1. no, I asked a simple question that you conveniently sidestepped: is it possible that charters are trying to send a message to their students about avoiding pregnancy while in school?

                    Charters are NOT like the rest of the public system; they can, in fact, set up rules that are different because attendance there is voluntary, not compulsory.

                    I did not say “damn the law;” I said all the clubhouse lawyers are getting so wrapped up in their various interpretations of it that they are missing the trees. Folks can’t even agree on whether the policy is illegal or not. I see an effort to face a genuine problem in teh student body; you want to have a theoretical debate.

                    1. I see an effort to face a genuine problem in teh student body

                      You presume this is the only way to do it and the only way they are doing it. If you are a high school girl and haven’t been barraged with the message that getting pregnant is a bad idea you probably ride to school on a pegasus.

                    2. if you don’t like the rule, then don’t go to the charter school. Enrollment in one is voluntary, not compulsory.

                      And no, I did NOT presume this was the ONLY way; it’s A way and it may be a silly way. Nonetheless, no one is forced to attend charter schools.

                    3. Folks can’t even agree on whether the policy is illegal or not. I see an effort to face a genuine problem in teh student body; you want to have a theoretical debate.

                      Yes, how dare we discuss whether this violates someone’s constitutional rights. We should be…doing what again?

                    4. charter school enrollment is voluntary; what part of that escapes you? If you don’t like the organization’s rules, then don’t join it.

                      One could say the same about the military where the concept of rights is different from the norm. Alternatively, I’m sure you will find a rich career in battling for the right of teens to have children the rest of us can support.

                    5. What part of “funded by the government” escapes you?

                      Alternatively, I’m sure you will find a rich career in battling for the right of teens to have children the rest of us can support.

                      Sometimes rights involve outcomes you don’t like. Deal with it.

                    6. what the fuck ever. You are arguing for its own sake. The military is also “funded by the govt.”

                      Do you even understand what charter schools are? They get some leeway in drafting their own rules and no one is forced to go to one. Enrollment is voluntary and, in LA, very competitive because the public system is such a clusterfuck.

                      But you keep defending the “right” to get pregnant at 16. That’s one that ought to be championed in the mostly black community these schools serve. I’m sure the parents will welcome your support.

                    7. Working.

                      Now get to it serf. Uncle Sugar doesn’t feed himself ya know.

        2. The private school my wife attended required girls who got pregnant to name the father; he was expelled.

    2. Charter schools aren’t quasi-private, though.

      They’re 100% public schools, unless Louisiana does things very differently from anything else I’ve ever seen.

      This is one reason that charter schools are an inferior solution to vouchers, or to outright total educational privatization.

      1. +1. Obliterating governmental involvement in education would be great.

        1. Who pays to educate the poor?

          1. I would.

          2. Who said anyone is entitled to an education?

            1. Every state constitution in the US.

              1. I mean morally, Derider.

                1. Universal education increases utility.

                  That’s the only moral argument I ever consider.

                  1. Your death may make me supremely happy and not a lot of people sad, and therefore your death is more useful than having you alive.

                    That’s the consequence of being a utilitarian.

                    1. My life is worth more to me than to anybody else, and therefore my death isn’t more useful.

                      If I could eliminate world hunger by taxing one penny, I should not do it because taxes are immoral.

                      That’s the consequence of being an Objectivist.

                    2. If I could eliminate world hunger by taxing one penny, I should not do it because taxes are immoral.

                      That’s the consequence of being an Objectivist.

                      Yes, that is correct. Because the existence of a problem somewhere in the world does not create an entitlement to the labors of others.

                      My life is worth more to me than to anybody else, and therefore my death isn’t more useful.

                      I’ll be the judge of that.

                      *judges*

                      No, you’re wrong. Sorry.

                  2. Derprider = joe

                2. the answer is still every state constitution. When those documents were forged, every state saw that its moral responsibility included providing education to its citizens to prepare them for adulthood.

                  In NC, the word “entitled” actually appears in the document. Debating whether it should or not is howling at the moon; no state is going to re-draft its constitution where schools are concerned. The charter movement is an effort to create better-educated students and, by their nature, charters get to operate under different rules structures than the main public system.

                  The biggest difference is that charters involve a conscious choice. No one goes based on district. Choosing to join specific organizations usually means agreeing to their rules.

          3. “Who pays…”

            Always the ultimate liberal concern

            1. It’s everybody’s ultimate concern.

          4. I’d gladly donate a substantial amount of my salary to private education, and so would pretty much every other person on my side of the political spectrum I know.

            1. Given the raft of unhired teachers out there, education should be substantially cheaper than it is. Of course, when government is involved, nothing is cheap.

              1. There are countries where public education is cheaper than ours and produces better outcomes.

                Government, in and of itself, isn’t the issue here.

                1. There are countries where public education is cheaper than ours and produces better outcomes.

                  Government, in and of itself, isn’t the issue here.

                  How is your first sentence evidence for the second?

                  Somebody has to administer their public education system more poorly than others. I fail to see how that vitiates the government’s responsibility.

                  1. If some governments administer their public education systems effectively, producing high academic achievement, then government involvement cannot be the sole cause of poor educational outcomes in the US.

                    1. If some governments administer their public education systems effectively

                      They administer it effectively as compared to other government run systems. That does not mean that they are administering it effectively.

                    2. Because your imaginary alternative is better?

                      “They administer it effectively as compared to all the other educational systems that exist, now or ever.”

                      Happy?

                2. Your first sentence proves why the second sentence (in regards to our government) is patently false.

                  1. What I mean is this:

                    Our government implements public education policy poorly.

                    Other governments implement public education policy well.

                    It is therefore possible for our government to implement public education policy well.

                    Some quality of governance must determine whether those policies are implemented well– government involvement does not inherently cause failure.

                    1. Our government implements public education policy poorly.

                      Other governments implement public education policy well a little less poorly

                      And therefore your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

                3. Government, in and of itself, isn’t the issue here.

                  of course, it is the issue since govt is the primary provider of education. It may be cheaper in other countries because their admin payroll is substantially less than ours, because their tolerance for in-class bullshit is likely lower than ours, becuase they are not make-work union-run operations, and because the presence of the politically-perpetuated permanent underclass is far less present. Yes, govt IS the issue.

            2. Why don’t you do this right now? Why don’t they?

              1. People already pay an arm and a leg for a subpar product, Derider.

                1. No, they don’t.

                  They’re taxed.

                  Being taxed does not preclude you from donating to charity.

                  1. You don’t pay taxes, do you?

                    My property taxes are over $7,000 a year. Expecting me to donate on top of that to the same cause is not only punitive but it’s mean-spirited. You’re trying to make me feel guilty because I only give the State $7,000 for education? That’s cold blooded.

                    1. I’m not trying to make you feel guilty. I’m suggesting that there’s no evidence that a wellspring of private donations to educate the poor would magically appear if government no longer taxed people to pay for public schools.

                      And everybody pays taxes.

                    2. I’m suggesting that there’s no evidence that a wellspring of private donations to educate the poor would magically appear if government no longer taxed people to pay for public schools.

                      Because apparently money isn’t fungible in your world.

                    3. It’s not about fungibility.

                      I’m saying that you pay 7000 dollars a year to finance public education because you have to. There’s no evidence that you’ll give any money to support educating the poor if you’re not legally required to.

                      There is no country in the world that runs an educational system like that.

                    4. There’s no evidence that you’ll give any money to support educating the poor if you’re not legally required to.

                      In other words, because the state forcibly extracts money and as a result no one donates, that’s evidence for the state to continue extracting money.

                      Wow, Bootstrapping, Party of One…

                    5. “and as a result no one donates”

                      Citation needed.

                    6. I just cited myself. Others here cited themselves.

                      What kind of cite for something that DIDN’T HAPPEN could possibly satisfy you?

                      Do you realize how dopey your “standards” here are? your argument is “no one donates, so therefore no one will ever donate”

                      So convincing.

                    7. What evidence is the assertion that “because the state forcibly extracts money …as a result no one donates” based on?

                    8. And everybody pays taxes.

                      No, not on net they don’t. Just because FICA is extracted from your paycheck does not mean you “pay taxes” as that phrase is used, because you will get a refund and the EITC.

                      So stow that malarkey.

                    9. Sales taxes.

                    10. Like I said, you don’t pay taxes, do you? Do you honestly not know how burdensome property taxes are? They cause people to not buy houses they could otherwise afford.

                    11. Like I said, everybody pays taxes like sales taxes.

                      I don’t particularly like property taxes, because they distort markets more than other types of taxes. I’d rather see government financed entirely on income taxes.

                    12. Sales taxes don’t pay for schools. Property taxes pay for schools.

                      And fuck you if you think I should have to pay the government for the “privilege” of providing food and shelter for my family.

                    13. Sales taxes pay for schools. Income taxes pay for schools. Property taxes pay for schools.

                      I think you should have to pay the government for the “privilege” of living in a modern, industrialized state. If you disagree, nobody’s stopping you from seasteading.

                    14. I’m not even one of those people who think we should pay no taxes, but an income tax is the most immoral tax to ever be thought up by man.

                      At least with sales taxes I don’t pay if I don’t buy.

                    15. If you don’t buy anything, what’s the point of making money in the first place?

          5. Educate how? Formal schooling is not the end all for education. How about apprenticeships, trades, etc?

            1. Formal schooling is the end all for education in every industrialized country in the world.

              1. Well I guess if other industrialized countries jumped off a bridge, The Derider would too.

                1. If they all jumped off the bridge and became fabulously wealthy compared to the countries that didn’t, yes I would.

              2. I did not ask if all the other industrialized countries in the world did it, I asked what is the best way to educate people.

                If someone has a love and interest of plumbing, but hates school, would it not be in the best interest to put that person in a trade rather than force them into a setting they hate?

                1. I agree that the United States has neglected vocational training for a focus on standardized test scores.

                  I think that the best way to provide vocational training for people would be public funding.

                  1. How about non-school training? Apprenticeships for instance?

                    You are still tying education to the state and public funding. I say sunder those bonds and let the people decide what to learn; and let them or their employer pay for the training.

                    1. But Ptah, no one else does things this way, ergo it won’t work. Derider’s proof is that no one does things this way.

                    2. Yeah that sounds like a terrible plan.

                      I don’t have a problem with kids getting a vocational track instead of a college track in secondary school.

                      But if a kid says “I don’t wanna learn how to read”, too fucking bad.

              3. That’s comedy gold joe.

          6. Who pays to educate the poor?

            The poor should pay for their own education.

            Or are you asking who should pay the exorbitant salaries and pensions of the teachers and administrators of the poor?

            1. An honest answer!

              Private school teachers and administrators cost a lot, too. Too much for the poor to afford in most cases.

              Is there any country in the world with high educational outcomes that does not publicly finance education?

              1. Is there any country in the world with high educational outcomes that does not publicly finance education?

                Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                See also: Conflation.

                You’ve been doing both all day.

                1. That’s not post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                  It’s an inductive statistical argument.

                  Here’s it stated in a more pointed way: “Why is there absolutely no evidence of a fully privatized national education system producing good educational outcomes?”

                  1. Here’s it stated in a more pointed way: “Why is there absolutely no evidence of a fully privatized national education system producing good educational outcomes?”

                    Why is there no evidence of the outcomes of a fully privatized space program?

                    Answer: Because it’s never been done before.

                    Your argument is “Nations X and Y have high educational outcomes. They also have public schools. Ergo, public schools are a good thing”

                    That doesn’t follow.

                    1. Fully privatized space programs have been attempted before. They all failed. Space X might break the trend (although they just got a 500 million government contract so…)

                      Similarly, we’ve tried fully privatized education systems before. Public education hasn’t existed forever. It just works better.

              2. Private school teachers and administrators cost a lot, too. Too much for the poor to afford in most cases.

                And we know this because we have never tried it. That’s your whole case.

                If the poor can make provisions for food and medical care and housing, I fail to see why you want to condescend to them and claim they cannot similarly make a budget provision for a low-cost school.

                You’re right that not everyone is going to get exactly the same level of education. But life isn’t fair.

                1. We know how much private schools cost right now because we have private schools right now.

                  We know many poor people cannot afford those schools because if they could afford them, they would send their children to superior private schools.

                  And we can be reasonably assured that a fully privatized system would fail because there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, of it working.

                  1. And we can be reasonably assured that a fully privatized system would fail because there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, of it working.

                    Because it’s never been done. Good Lord, how often are you going to rely on this point and ignore the counter?

                    Your argument is basically “An all-volunteer army would never work. How do we know? Because every other nation in the world uses the draft.”

                    That is the dumbest argument I have heard all day.

                    1. No, that’s wrong. There were fully privatized education systems long before public education was implemented.

                      They sucked. People preferred public education. That’s why public education is ubiquitous in every country that can afford it.

                    2. No, that’s wrong. There were fully privatized education systems long before public education was implemented.

                      This isn’t even close to historically accurate.

                      I am slapping a giant [citation needed] on your entire argument.

                    3. Europe before the 16th century.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..1600_AD.29

                  2. Part of the reason some of those charter schools can’t compete is because they have to compete with public schools that don’t charge tuition.

                    Part of the reason some of those charter schools can’t compete is becasue parents would have to pay for public schools through property taxes–on top of paying tuition at a private school.

                    Regardless, not all charter schools couldn’t survive without taxpayer support, and the ones that could survive should be privatized.

                    Also, if free tuition at public schools was means tested, it would devote more funds to the students who were refused admission to private schools for various reasons, and those students are, undoubtedly, the students who need our tax dollars the most.

                    Why deprive the most vulnerable students of the fund and attention they need, Derider?

                    1. 1) I think you’re confusing charter schools and private schools. Charter schools can’t charge tuition and get the same per-pupil funding as regular public schools.

                      2) Public education does allocate significantly more funding to the most vulnerable, at-risk students. It’s called “special education”. Charter and private schools provide markedly worse service to these students–if they accept them at all.

                    2. 1) I think you’re confusing charter schools and private schools. Charter schools can’t charge tuition and get the same per-pupil funding as regular public schools.

                      I’m talking about why charter schools should be privatized.

                      There’s no confusion on my part.

                      2) Public education does allocate significantly more funding to the most vulnerable, at-risk students. It’s called “special education”. Charter and private schools provide markedly worse service to these students–if they accept them at all.

                      And all those kids in public schools who don’t need special education are sapping up all those resources from kids that do.

                      Why? Because they don’t have to pay tuition? That’s shameful.

                  3. We know how much private schools cost right now because we have private schools right now.

                    Because an increase in supply won’t lead to a decrease in price.

                    This is Econ 100, and you just failed it.

                    1. If you cut all the government schools you substantially increase demand for private schools, too. We don’t know whether that would lead to a price increase or decrease.

                      Oh snap econ 101.

                    2. If you cut all the government schools you substantially increase demand for private schools, too.

                      Yep, but that’s a far different thing from your original argument, isn’t it?

                      Because at first you said “I, The Derider, can tell you how much private schools will cost in the future, because I can tell you how much they cost now”

                      Had to back off of that, didn’t you?

                    3. If you have an argument as to why they would become cheaper, make it.

                      We know that, status quo, most poor people cannot afford private education. It’s rational to assume that, without a significant reason for change, this pattern will continue.

                    4. The same reasons phone and cable service became cheaper and more dynamic after privatization is my argument.

                      We know that, status quo, most poor people cannot afford private education. It’s rational to assume that, without a significant reason for change, this pattern will continue.

                      Despite a significant change in market forces?

                      And people call libertarians anti-science.

                    5. A change in market forces in which direction? We have no information about whether cutting government schools would affect the market, or if it would at all.

                      And econ isn’t science, persay.

                  4. Right. Private schools having a corner on the market of getting kids out of shitty public schools means that if all schools were privately run they’d be expensive.

                    Competition, how does it work?

                    1. Private schools aren’t a monopoly-they’re independently run. They can’t corner the market on anything. I have no reason to believe that the tuition charged by private schools right now does not equal the marginal cost of educating a student at that private school.

                    2. Private schools barely have a reason to compete or innovate, guy.

                      You know what? You’re never, ever going to get it, so this is a waste of time.

                    3. Why is there a failure in the private school market? You don’t think competition with other private schools affects their actions?

                2. “You’re right that not everyone is going to get exactly the same level of education. But life isn’t fair.”

                  Not to mention the fact that under public, government provided education, not everyone gets the same quality of education. That is not a problem that public schools solve. And it is not just a problem of funding.

              3. Is there any country in the world with high educational outcomes that does not publicly finance education?

                derider,
                the issue is not how schools paid for, it’s how they are operated. And no one can, with a straight face, claim that the public system is successful. Charters are one attempt at improvement.

                The evidence shows that more money alone is NOT the answer; the lousiest districts are often the ones with the highest per-pupil expenditures. It’s not the money; it’s how that money is allocated.

                1. I was replying to the suggestion that “Obliterating government involvement in education would be great”

                  I don’t have any problem with charter schools whatsoever. I have a problem with the suggestion that government should not fund public education.

                  1. I have a problem with the suggestion that government should not fund public education.

                    Because everyone else does it that way and that’s the way everyone else has always done it.

                    Does that sum it up?

                    1. Because the countries that do it that way have much better educational outcomes than the ones that don’t.

                    2. Because the countries that do it that way have much better educational outcomes than the ones that don’t.

                      Who in the developed world are you comparing against?

                    3. I’m not comparing against countries in the developed world, because every developed economy has publicly funded education.

                    4. I’m not comparing against countries in the developed world, because every developed economy has publicly funded education.

                      Then how did you make this assertion?

                      Because the countries that do it that way have much better educational outcomes than the ones that don’t.

                    5. Then how did you make this assertion?

                      Because the countries that do it that way have much better educational outcomes than the ones that don’t.

                      THANK YOU.

                      See, Derider, you can’t just say “Hey, look at all these countries that do well and have public education”, because every country that does well has public education. Correlation =/= causation.

                    6. If you want to provide an alternate explanation for the correlation, please go ahead. It’s not like there’s no relationship between a state’s educational structure and a state’s academic outcomes.

                      The fact that every single country that has good educational outcomes does so with a system of public education seems beyond coincidence.

                    7. The fact that every single country that has good educational outcomes does so with a system of public education seems beyond coincidence.

                      All you are doing is saying they are good as compared to other public systems. How many times does this need to be pointed out to you? Are you going to address this point or are you going to continue to ignore it?

                      You are defining “good” as “better than other public school systems”. You have no apples to apples comparisons.

                    8. Countries that do not provide a free public education to all have significantly worse educational outcomes.

                      Somalia
                      Chad
                      Afghanistan
                      Nepal

                    9. Nevermind that there ARE countries with large private school markets that are forcing the public schools to compete with them.

                  2. public education is never going to be abolished. More options will surface, be they church-run, college-prep types, continuation of home schooling, but the argument about public funding is a waste of time. Unless someone believes that every state is going to re-draft its constitution.

                    1. but the argument about public funding is a waste of time.

                      I disagree. As technology increases and teaching methods get better, you will find more and more people opting out of public education. At some point these people are going to start asking why are they paying for schools they do not use.

                  3. I have a problem with the suggestion that government should not fund public education.

                    Then state why they should fund public education, without using egalitarianism as a basis. One size does not fit all, and people should be free to choose how and what to teach their kids. Why should a person who does not have kids be forced to pay for schools? Why should a homeschooler have to pay for schools? Why should someone who sends their kid to private school have to pay for public schools?

                    1. I haven’t made a single egalitarian argument.

                      My only argument is utilitarian. Taxation that pays for public education is a net economic gain for a country.

                    2. My only argument is utilitarian. Taxation that pays for public education is a net economic gain for a country.

                      You have proof of this? And utilitarianism is abhorrently immoral.

                    3. No your system of morals is immoral!

                    4. No your system of morals is immoral!

                      If a group of people are a drag on a country, would it increase or decrease the utility of the country if those people were removed?

                      Do people in a vegetative state have a positive or negative utility?

                      Do people on welfare have a positive or negative utility?

                      IF they cost more to feed/cloth/house/care for than they contribute, I would have to conclude they have a negative utility; and therefore it would be “moral” to remove them.

                      That is YOUR morality under utilitarianism.

                  4. Government should be the educator of last resort…at most.

                    1. That’s what it is right now.

                    2. That’s what it is right now.

                      No it’s not. It’s the primary educator.

                    3. It can be both the primary educator and the educator of last resort. Those are not mutually exclusive.

                      If you can afford a private school, you send your kids there.
                      If you can find a charter school that accepts your kids, you send your kids there.
                      If you can homeschool your kids, you do that.
                      If you can’t, your last resort is public school.

                    4. It can be both the primary educator and the educator of last resort. Those are not mutually exclusive.

                      The fact that you have no recognition of the notion of “crowding out” the public sector tells me a lot.

                    5. There’s no reason why public education can’t be means tested, etc.

                      The government could still educate people who are kicked out of private schools, who are refused enrollment at a private school, or who can’t afford private school…

                      And still be the educator of last resort.

                      If property taxes are ultimately coming from the people who send their kids to public schools, there’s no reason why that money for most students couldn’t come by way of tuition rather than property taxes.

                    6. A significant amount of the property taxes (or other taxes that support education) are not coming from the parents of students currently being educated.

                      Those people still benefit from an educated population, however.

                    7. Well, the people who think the benefits of an educated population outweigh the benefit of holding onto their own money can feel free to send newly privatized charter schools their paychecks.

                      The only people who would really stand to lose from privatization (with a minimum guarantee by way of means testing) are government bureaucrats and their fat pensions…

                      And I don’t feel sorry for them at all.

          7. “Who pays to educate the poor?”

            A nice compromise might be to have government funding for education and private provision. There are many alternatives to government run schools which don’t exclude the poor.

      2. This is one reason that charter schools are an inferior solution to vouchers

        How are vouchers different than a charter school?

        Go.

        1. Vouchers provide a transfer payment directly to an individual who can then spend that transfer payment purchasing a good of their own choice.

          If a person receiving a voucher purchases religious education from a private school, it is in principle no different from a social security recipient tithing part of their SSI check to their church, or a Food Stamps recipient buying matzo for Passover.

          Charter schools are government entities, much more similar to a Turnpike or Ferry Authority than to a private school. Their funding mechanism gets them their funding directly from the government.

          1. Charter schools are government entities, much more similar to a Turnpike or Ferry Authority than to a private school. Their funding mechanism gets them their funding directly from the government.

            Right, and with a voucher system the private school would be getting their funding directly from the government.

            You either need to rethink your opinion of vouchers or your opinion of charter schools. Charter schools are meant to be an alternative form of education. If nobody chooses to enroll in a charter school, that school will go out of business; unlike a public school where enrollment is pretty much irrelevant.

            1. Right, and with a voucher system the private school would be getting their funding directly from the government.

              That’s not necessary. I realize many voucher programs are set up that way, but I could easily devise one that wouldn’t be.

              1. So… A voucher system where the government doesn’t pay the school?

                I fail to see how such a voucher system would exist.

          2. I agree with you about the difference between charter schools and vouchers, but I don’t think the idiot masses appreciate the nuance.

            And I’m sure that the politicians don’t understand that private schools should be free to do as they please–even if they’re taking students on vouchers.

            This is how ObamaCare started. First the government decided that they’d pay for people to get service in private hospitals. Then the government decided that so long as private hospitals are taking government money, they should have to live by certain rules. Then the government decided that it’s against the law for hospitals to refuse service to people on the government program…

            The solution to public schools is not to turn private schools into a government program. The solution to public schools is to get rid of the government program and privatize them.

            1. Hey, Ken, that’s fine.

              You might argue that allowing people to spend taxpayer funds at private schools would eventually force the private schools to obey government rules.

              But charter schools ALREADY ARE government schools. That means they have to obey the constitution. If that makes it impossible to run them the way some people would like to, too fucking bad.

              1. I think that’s probably a good argument for privatizing charter schools.

                I understand the problem is that some of them wouldn’t survive without government support. I suspect that’s partially true because they have to compete with other public schools in the area that don’t charge tuition.

                Ever see a housing project that advertised that to buy a home or condo there, you have to be over 55 or some such age? They call it “senior housing”.

                That’s becasue the school district/city/county made a deal with the developer, that if you restrict your sales to people who are unlikely to have children, you won’t have to pay the sky high developer’s fees to the school district for bringing more children to their town–and you may get to pay a lot less in property taxes since none of the taxes spent at the school district are going to your children.

                Maybe people get a rebate on their property taxes if they’re sending their kids to a private school. Maybe that helps charter schools survive after they’ve been privatized. Regardless, privatization–as much as it’s possible–is the solution to our public school problems. And privatizing charter schools that could survive on their own looks like a great place to start.

      3. This is one reason that charter schools are an inferior solution to vouchers, or to outright total educational privatization.

        Because there is no way the government could set requirements for schools to be allowed to accept voucher money, so we do not have to worry about a voucher program being a backdoor to government control of private schools.

        Honestly, I am surprised voucher programs are not more popular with the statists types.

        1. Probably because those particular statist types are on the same team as the teacher-unionist types.

    3. We’ve been getting more of what we reward.

      Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 44% since 1991 and is currently the lowest it’s been since 1946:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..hnicities/

      1. Welfare reform is on the line and would like to speak with you.

        1. Be that as it may, R C Dean’s hysteria about the epidemic of social decay brought on by a insufficient sadism toward pregnant teenage girls has no basis in fact.

      2. That is not what I saw on Baby Momma: Who is the Daddy and I am certain that my “reality” TV anecdotal evidence is representative of 300,000,000.

    4. Getting pregnant has consequences. If one of them is that you have to do your schoolwork at home, I don’t see that as a huge violation of anyone’s rights.

      Unless the pregnant girls has made a criminal rape complaint, we can presume that she got pregnant voluntarily. Its not discriminatory, in my mind, to have policies that apply consequences to voluntary decisions.

      It doesn’t punish women, so much as it punishes the decision to get pregnant. The fact that only women can make that decision is pretty irrelevant, to me.

      On the whole, I’m not sure why public, charter, and/or private schools shouldn’t be free to adopt such a policy.

      1. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 44% since 1991 and is currently the lowest it’s been since 1946.

        True enough. If you think this is a good thing, then perhaps your would agree that an organization could have good reasons for saying “We don’t want to normalize/facilitate/celebrate teen pregnancy in our school, so if you get pregnant, you should do your studying at home until the baby is born.”

        1. But the rates have dropped at the same time as teen pregnancy has become more normalized and supported in some ways. It seems to me that the pregnant girl at school would serve as a cautionary example at least as much as she serves as a potential role model for others.
          Allowing pregnant girls to attend school isn’t facilitating pregnancy. It is facilitating continuing education despite other difficult circumstances in life. Forcing them to do their work at home (and there is more to school than homework) would just encourage more to drop out entirely, it seems to me.

      2. It doesn’t punish women, so much as it punishes the decision to get pregnant.

        It also punishes women who are not pregnant, but refuse to submit to a pregnancy test.

        1. That’s another voluntary decision, which can entail consequences.

          1. That’s another voluntary decision, which can entail consequences.

            Which sounds disturbingly like “if the girls haven’t done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.”

            1. Not really. It sounds like “if you want to attend this school, you agree to abide by these rules”

            2. Did someone insist that a girl take a pregnancy test?

              Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see where that was supposed to have happened.

              1. Did someone insist that a girl take a pregnancy test?

                “At the Delhi Charter School, a state-funded K-12 school in northern Louisiana, students who are suspected of being pregnant are required to take a pregnancy test.”

                Sounds like that’s exactly what they do.

                1. I can see kicking them out for getting pregnant, just like I can seem them kicking someone out for doing drugs, but requiring a pregnancy test is pushing it.

                  Again, that’s a great argument for privatizing the place.

        2. Is that the way it works?

          The school I went to would have kicked students out for getting pregnant, but no one ever ordered anyone to take a pregnancy test.

          If you get pregnant, after a while, people can tell.

      3. Its not discriminatory, in my mind, to have policies that apply consequences to voluntary decisions.

        “Being a girl” is not a voluntary decision (the existence of sex-change surgery notwithstanding), and under this school’s misogynist policy, even a girl who is a virgin and cannot possibly be pregnant unless she’s God’s chosen vessel for the second coming of Christ can nonetheless be forced to submit to a demeaning test solely because some spiteful gossip decided to spread a rumor about her, or because she’s going through the adolescent “hormones gone wild” phase resulting in weight gain even without any noticeable increase in calorie consumption or decrease in physical activity.

        1. Oh great, here comes Miss Overwrought McHandWringer to berate us all with wild hyperbole.

          Yippee skippy.

          “Being a girl” is not a voluntary decision

          Attending the school is.

          under this school’s misogynist policy

          How is the policy misogynist?

          1. If the intent is to discourage teen pregnancies, kick out the father too. It takes to to tango.

            1. What if the father does not go to the school?

              How are you going to find the father? DNA dragnet? Make the girl divulge her entire sexual history?

              1. Forced pregnancy test is not too personal, but asking the girl if she knows who the father is isn’t?

                1. Ack, meant to say, “Forced pregnancy test is not too personal, but asking the girl if she knows who the father is is too personal”?

                  1. Forcing the pregnancy test is total bullshit though.

                2. This still does not make the policy “misogynistic”, just effective towards the obvious violators, is all.

                  Unfortunately for equality, women are the ones who get pregnant.

            2. And it takes one to say “no”.

    5. The intent of the policy is to reduce the number of pregnant students. What has happened in public schools is that pregnancy has become normalized, supported even, both institutionally and socially within the school, and guess what? We’ve been getting more of what we reward.

      False. The teen pregnancy rate is over 20% lower than it was in 1972

  9. If government schools are going to exist, they’ll have to abide by the Constitution. If you don’t like that, abolish them. Private schools can determine their own policies, obviously.

  10. Color me unsurprised. I grew up a few miles away from Delhi. *sigh*

  11. Louisiana has great booze laws. Nice.

  12. I thought charter schools were a good idea becasue they weren’t so trapped under the thumb of the state.

    Now I guess we’re supposed to think that privatizing the public school system is a bad idea because some schools would come up with policies the government doesn’t like?

    I’m trying to think of why the parents at the lower end of the income scale shouldn’t have the option to send their daughters to a school where getting pregnant is completely unacceptable, and I’m drawin’ a blank.

  13. Though the school maintains that there have been no complaints about the policy in the past…

    Does anyone know how many times this policy was used to kick out pregnant students?

  14. If private schools could no longer kick out pregnant students, who were there on vouchers, then that’s the best argument I’ve heard against vouchers yet.

    In fact, if we ever move to a voucher system, some president like Obama will almost certainly push for a law refusing to allow private schools to refuse admission to people with vouchers–would there be any more effective way for the government to exert control over private schools?

    1. I oppose a voucher system because all it would do is bring private schools under the control of the Department of Education (“We’re paying so we set the policy”), and then proceed to ruin them.

      1. Yeah, I’m pretty opposed to any form of public education. It doesn’t do anything to make people less stupid as evidenced by everyday life.

        However, if we must have government education, I’d prefer charter schools or vouchers to the daycare that is the current public education system.

      2. That is the danger. And it is why I am surprised liberals don’t love the idea of vouchers.

        1. Especially when you’re talking about religious schools.

          It seems to me that the most hostile people to vouchers I’ve come across (except for the teachers’ unions) were people who ran religious schools.

          A lot of those people are sending their kids to religious private schools because they don’t want the government teaching their kids about evolution; why Heather has two mommies; and they want the other students to get kicked out for doing drugs or getting pregnant.

          Privatizing public schools is the solution; threatening a private school’s freedom to adapt their curriculum and polices to whatever their market wants isn’t the solution to anything.

          1. Privatizing the schools is much more difficult than you might imagine, as most state constitutions mandate government provision of education.

            1. Pretty sure this isn’t true.

              1. I’m pretty sure that it is. Care to tell me why you think it is not?

                1. My state doesn’t; but you made the assertion, which puts the burden of proof on you.

                  1. What state are you in?

                    You can start here (PDF) and here if you like.

                    You will note I said “most”, which renders your blithe statement concerning something I have researched, studied, and written about even more foolish.

                    1. The few constitutions that I reviewed (SC, NC, VA) mandate that an effective system of education be in place, but do not mention that the state must be the one providing the education.

                    2. The few constitutions that I reviewed (SC, NC, VA) mandate that an effective system of education be in place, but do not mention that the state must be the one providing the education.

                      Who do you think a State Constitution is mandating in that example? Space Aliens? Some other state? The Man on the Moon?

                  2. My state does.

            2. Privatizing the schools is much more difficult than you might imagine, as most state constitutions mandate government provision of education.

              I appreciate that it’s difficult.

              Incidentally, I also want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.

              I’m actually sympathetic to the idea that the government should educate children who wouldn’t or couldn’t be educated in the private system.

              If there were a law mandating that the government educate children below a certain means test–or children who were refused entrance to or kicked out of a private school? Then I’m not sure that wouldn’t satisfy the mandate you’re talking about.

          2. Most people I know who are like that have even given up on religious schools. Most of them home school. And every single one of them I know has kids who are anywhere from two to four grades above the norm.

            If there is any assemblence of a meritocracy in the future, the home schooled kids are going to rule all.

            1. Yeah, it’s almost a luxury thing.

              If people are willing to make the sacrifice, or they have the time and income where one parent can really put that much into it, then doing it yourself is hard to beat.

              It’s like that in business, too. A developer can’t hire a construction manager that would do things the same way he would if he were doing it himself.

              I can often tell which homes are owned and which ones are rentals, in my neighborhood, just by looking at the lawn. There’s just no way someone else will ever do a consistently better job on something than you would do if you did it yourself.

        2. Liberals aren’t known for thinking things through.

          The intent of vouchers is to give students more choices. Liberals despise the idea of choice unless it means killing the unborn.
          That vouchers could result in more government control does not occur to them because they focus on intent and ignore results.

      3. Your state has way more control than the DoE has or probably ever will.

        If your objection is to government control of private schools in general, well, maybe, but no private school is obligated to take the voucher.

        1. No private school is obligated to take the voucher yet.

          1. That is not an argument against vouchers, Ken. That is an argument against making them mandatory.

            Is there no incremental change possible here? Introducing an element of market activity would do wonders to improve the school system.

            1. This isn’t a slippery slope I’m talking about. The same thing happened in healthcare for the same reasons in response to the same pressures.

              The reason private schools haven’t done as poorly as private hospitals is because private schools aren’t required to take public school students yet. The reason private schools aren’t required to take public schools yet is because the government hasn’t been paying for public school kids to go to private schools.

              As I wrote above:

              “This is how ObamaCare started. First the government decided that they’d pay for people to get service in private hospitals. Then the government decided that so long as private hospitals are taking government money, they should have to live by certain rules. Then the government decided that it’s against the law for hospitals to refuse service to people on the government program…”

              ObamaCare is the natural consequence of the government paying for patients on a government program to be admitted to a private hospital. If we don’t want to see the same thing happen to our private schools, then we should resist letting the government pay for students to attend public schools.

          2. “How come this school takes vouchers and that one doesn’t? That’s not fair! We need to force all schools to take vouchers! Make it fair!”

            1. It’s racist.

              That school is using tax payer dollars to teach creationism!

              We all need to make sacrifices for the common good.

  15. Another aspect: students who are suspected of being pregnant.

    “Overweight student brings suit under ADA”

  16. The High school in my area (public) has been pushing out pregnant girls for years.

    1. It was SOP when I was in high school. You simply never saw pregnant girls in school. They had to do their classwork from home.

      Sure, it sucked. But everybody knew that’s what would happen.

      Decisions have consequences. Why a bunch of libertarians are railing against that concept, I have no idea. Why, its almost as if they believe that there is a natural right to attend school, and that any restrictions or conditions on that right are an offense against human liberty.

      1. No, RC, no one here is arguing that.

        What we are discussing is what is proper for the government to do in relation to the beneficiaries of its programs. No one is saying that anyone is entitled to anything.

        1. It’s almost as if he’s forgot his own laws.

        2. No one is saying that anyone is entitled to anything.

          If you are saying that the state should not be allowed to impose this rule on the beneficiaries of its programs, then you are either arguing

          (a) Its a dumb rule on the merits, in which case we can debate the merits (which nobody seems to be doing, although its a big thread), or

          (b) The rule is some kind of invidious discrimination (which at least some are explicitly arguing), which means it is a violation of rights.

          1. Yep. Still don’t see where anyone’s arguing that makes anyone entitled to jack or shit.

            Just because I think welfare programs cannot legally be contingent does not mean I think people are entitled to welfare programs.

            RC Dean, if there was a welfare program that was contingent on the state shooting you in the leg, and I said that it was illegal for the state to do that, would you say that I am saying that people are therefore entitled to that welfare program?

            no, of course you wouldn’t. That would be silly.

            1. Yep. Still don’t see where anyone’s arguing that makes anyone entitled to jack or shit.

              People are arguing that its discriminatory, that its unconstitutional, etc.

              How does that not either presume or create an entitlement?

              1. Again, as I said, just because I think it is illegal for the government to shoot you in the leg, or dance around in blackface, to get your check does not mean I think you are entitled to the check.

          2. Well, let’s debate the merits, then. I don’t see how it benefits anyone to keep a pregnant girl out of school just because she is pregnant. Yes, schools used to do it more, but I think that was more for appearances than any actual benefit to anyone. Pretending that something doesn’t happen doesn’t often fix the problem and accepting that something does indeed happen (1 year old girls have been getting pregnant since day one) is not necessarily to encourage it.

            1. This is a very practical policy. Schools don’t need the legal responsibility of having a pregnant girl in their care 8 hrs a day.

              It also benefits the pregnant girl because pregnancy sucks and can be really uncomfortable. Forget morning sickness, I don’t see how sitting in those tiny, hard seats is even possible in the last months. And she would be regularly missing school anyway, because of all the prenatal appointments.

              She also doesn’t need the stress of other kids talking about her and staring at her in the halls.

              I see this policy as protecting the girls from discomfort and harassment, as well as the school from dealing with medical emergencies like a girl going into early labor or having a miscarriage on school grounds.

  17. I think the obvious answer you sexist pigs are so blind to, is that the school should pay for these girls’ birth control, which costs $3000/year according to that brave Ms Fluke.

  18. No. the benefit here is going to a school where it is not acceptable to be pregnant. If you could show me that all of the other schools get less funding or are treated second class, you would have a point.

    But you can’t in this case. The whole point of a charter school is not that it is better funded but that it operates by different rules. The carrot here is going to a school where people agree to live under a given set of rules.

    So we are back to the original question, why can’t students bargain with the state and agree to abide by rules they think will help their education?

    This is absolutely no different, at all, in even the tiniest respect, from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts saying that from now on to drive on the Mass Turnpike you have to sign a waiver giving up your 4th Amendment rights and allowing the state police to search your home or business any time they want.

    “Hey, you can drive from Pittsfield to Boston on different roads if you want. Why do you have to drive on this road?”

    “Why can’t the state bargain with its citizens that way?” John asks. “Shouldn’t citizens be allowed to enter into contracts?” he asks. “It’s incredibly paternalistic that you want to prevent the state from spending tax dollars on something and then condition utilizing that public service on the waiver of a right.”

    1. Fluffy, I’m struggling with your analogy on two fronts

      (1) I believe that the Fourth Amendment (like all the BOR) protects a human/natural right. I’m having a hard time coming up a human/natural right to attend a particular school, although the lack of such a right would seem to allow segregation of schools by race, which makes me question it.

      OTOH, we allow schools everywhere to deny admission to students who live outside the district, who don’t pay (if private schools, etc.). This is a tough one for me.

      (2) Signing away your 4A rights everywhere and always in order to use a particular road one time strikes me as distinguishable from a requirement that you not come into this building pregnant. The better analogy would be signing away your 4A rights while on the Mass Pike.

      1. Take away 4A rights and change it to: You cant drive on the Mass Turnpike while pregnant.

        Analogy should hold better now.

      2. I’m having a hard time coming up a human/natural right to attend a particular school

        That actually isn’t the right in question.

        The right in question is the right to bear children.

        Withholding a public benefit based on the exercise of a natural right is not distinguishable from imposing a criminal penalty for the exercise of that right.

        There’s no natural right to food stamps, either, in my opinion. But there is a natural right to free speech. So if the government said, “From now on if you sign up for the food stamp program you have to sign a statement that you won’t attend any political demonstrations,” that would be, to me, indistinguishable from saying that a criminal penalty will be imposed on attending political demonstrations.

      3. The better analogy would be signing away your 4A rights while on the Mass Pike.

        But if they can do one, they can do the other.

        That’s the whole point.

        If they can say you can only attend a charter school if you waive a well-established right (and while it’s not a specifically enumerated right, it has a pretty vast history in law nonetheless) there is no logical reason why they can’t pass a 100% income tax but issue a 77% credit if you waive your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights. None at all that I can see.

        In both cases, the state has taken the citizens’ money and will withhold the return of that money either directly or as services unless the citizenry waives its rights.

    2. no one is FORCED to attend a charter school. Period. Enrollment is voluntary. The parents involved are making a conscious decision to put their kids into an environment where they may fare better than the school that their address would dictate their kids to attend.

      That charters are public is immaterial. By going to one, you agree to its terms. And, by definition, it is going to be somehow different than your district public school. If it were not, there would be no point in the exercise.

      1. no one is FORCED to attend a charter school.

        You’re coming at it from entirely the wrong way around.

        The charter school constitutes a government-provided benefit. It’s paid for with tax dollars.

        You can’t bar me access to it for any reason that would contradict an enumerated or unenumerated right, or that would violate equal protection.

        It has nothing to do with being forced to go. It’s a question of whether I want to go. If I do want to go, the school can’t say, “No Republicans!” It can’t say “No Catholics!”

        “But you can just go to the standard district public schools!” That doesn’t matter.

        1. You can’t bar me access to it for any reason that would contradict an enumerated or unenumerated right, or that would violate equal protection.

          see how they operate, particularly in LA. Access is, in fact, barred based on space limitations. There are only so many seats to go around; your desire to attend is predicated on their being space for you. Entry is often done by lottery.

  19. right to procreate

    Why the hell didn’t anyone ever tell me I have a right to procreate? I could have sued all those bitches in HS who refused to give me the time of day back then. And by “time of day” I mean “pussy”. /sarc

    1. Where’s my damn printing press?!

  20. As best as I can tell, the objection to this rule is that it is somehow a violation of equal protection, that for a public school to impose consequences on students who get pregnant means they are denied the “equal protection of the laws”.

    Initially, I have a question about whether imposing consequences for any voluntary decision violates equal protection. That opens the door to questioning the application of equal protection to religious discrimination, which is a problem, I admit (at least if you regard religious affiliation/belief as more or less a voluntary or conccious choice).

    I’m thinking, now, that equal protection doesn’t require that there be any violation of human/natural rights, so that issue about whether there is a human/natural right to attend a particular school is off the table.

    I dunno. Maybe my initial reaction that this is the kind of policy that even a public school could adopt is off base.

    Still not sure that we want to impose restrictions that the government is subject to on everyone who contracts with the government.

    1. this is a contract that is voluntarily entered. Charter schools are attended by choice.

      1. Charter schools are attended by choice.

        They’re not paid for by choice, however.

    2. I think the larger part that makes people squemish is the whole forcing them to take the pregnancy test.

      I can see the argument that going to the school is voluntary and therefore the school can kick you out for pretty much whatever reason they choose. But they shouldn’t be able to make some random 13y/o who chunked up a bit over winter break take a pregnancy test.

  21. There is good argument that this something the school should not do, and that Louisiana should not let the school do. Where it gets me is the ACLU trying to make that this is something that cannot be done ever. I don’t think that this is something that is unconstitutional, or that the federal government should have a say in.

  22. This is probably good thing to do at schools. Infact, every school should use this rule.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.