"Schools for Pregnant Girls, Relic of 1960s New York, Will Close." So announced a front-page headline in The New York Times. Well, if it's a relic, obviously it must be bad, right?
Right, says the Times. "Created in the 1960s, when pregnant girls were such pariahs that they were forced to leave school until their babies were born, the city school system's four pregnancy schools . . . have lived on . . ." Until now. They will close at the end of the school year "in recognition of their failure."
The Times paints a grim picture of these schools, virtual warehouses where pregnant teens are given busy work like sewing quilts instead of studying the Pythagorean theorem or biology. "It's a separate but unequal program," says Cami Anderson, superintendent in charge of the pregnancy schools, which cost taxpayers $33,670 per pupil per year.
There it is, in paragraph seven, the inevitable civil rights reference -- the most overused and misused comparison in American life. "Separate but equal" was delegitimized because it made invidious distinctions based upon nothing more than skin tone. But not every distinction is unlawful or even unfair.
Schools used to separate pregnant girls from their classmates because it was deemed unseemly to have a pregnant high school student in the regular classroom. These days, we've largely removed the stigma. Which system was better?
The Times approached the issue purely as a matter of education. These girls were not being encouraged to make the most of their educational opportunities. The Times cited Cassandra Gonzalez, 15, pregnant with a boy due in July, who wants to attend college and become a lawyer but is distracted by the "constant talk of babies at school."
Well, it isn't as if she doesn't have reason to be distracted. In a few months, she will give birth to the most permanent distraction there is. And that is a calamity for her own educational prospects, for her child's well-being and for society. Everyone knows the statistics on teenage childbearing. More than 55 percent of children living in a home with a never-married mother will be poor, compared with only nine percent of children with married parents.
Looking at long-term poverty rather than a snapshot for any given year, only 2.5 percent of two-parent families remain poor for six years or longer, whereas 19.4 percent of single-parent families do. Single mothers are more likely to receive welfare, less likely to ever finish school and less likely to achieve other life goals than women who wait until marriage to begin having children.
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa
Friday Document Dump: State Department Releases First Round of Clinton Emails (All 298 Of Them) | Katie Pavlich
Josh Duggar Resigns from FRC Action After Molestation Admission UPDATE: TLC Removes Show From Lineup | Christine Rousselle