If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

micropig

dark crystal wrote: »

I've read some mind numbingly stupid bile on this thread, but this post has to take the biscuit!

I hate to break it to you, especially seeing as you seem so happy in la la land up in that ivory tower of yours, looking down on everyone else, but life isn't always perfect. People aren't always perfect. Sh!t happens, even to the people who weren't expecting it or didn't ask for it. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

The obviously massive disdain you have for single parents is tainting your logic completely. I can only hope you are either extremely young or extremely sheltered, because some of the ludicrous assumptions you have posted on here just smack of pure naivety at best and utter ignorance at worst.

hondasam wrote: »

I know what it's like to be a single mother and the state did not need to provide for my children, I did that myself.

You seem to think all single mothers rely on welfare, Newsflash THEY DONT.

stop using those stupid smiley's, your posts come across as childish and trollish.

Let's not get all hormonal here like 16 year old pregnant girls, At least I know how to use contraception and consider the life the child will have before bringing it in to the world.:p


Posters hear make me laugh

16 year old pregnant, hoping through 2/3 different schools..no problem, lets all bow to her needs, perfectly fine in this day and age, ignorance about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy is perfectly acceptable and widespread

1 school in the country doesn't want to take her in as it is against their ethos...well lets force the school to change their ethos and demand they let her in because she wants to go there


It's all the schools fault, where is her parents responsibility in this?


State is providing her with an education, if it's not the type of education her parents, are satisfied with, they should hire a tutor

ash23

prinz wrote: »

Are you trying to equate workplaces with schools? It's been a few years since I was in school but I distinctly remember people running through the corridors, pushing others out of the way on stairs, lads wresting and horseplaying in the class room, books etc being thrown around but hey if that's the kind of workplace you work in good for you.

Eh, pregnant teachers anyone?
I recall teachers in my school being pregnant so i don't see why it would be a health and safety issue for a student.

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

Let's not get ........... should hire a tutor

Glad to see you're taking this seriously.

Did it occur to you that in the catchment area of this school that (a) there may well be a pregnant teenager/single mother who wishes to attend that place in the future and that (b) this has occurred before but the persons involved didn't want to take it further?

micropig wrote: »

State is providing her with an education,

It was - via the enlightened head of the school - refusing to do so. It always helps if you try to read whats going on before commenting.

Biggins

dark crystal wrote: »

I've read some mind numbingly stupid bile on this thread, but this post has to take the biscuit!

I hate to break it to you, especially seeing as you seem so happy in la la land up in that ivory tower of yours, looking down on everyone else, but life isn't always perfect. People aren't always perfect. Sh!t happens, even to the people who weren't expecting it or didn't ask for it. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

The obviously massive disdain you have for single parents is tainting your logic completely. I can only hope you are either extremely young or extremely sheltered, because some of the ludicrous assumptions you have posted on here just smack of pure naivety at best and utter ignorance at worst.

Thats my favourite read post of the day, right there above!
Well said dark crystal!

Cherrycola

She should have said it was an immaculate conception, and her child was the second coming of jesus christ!
Well, if the work of fiction they read from every sunday is to be believed, it happened before, it can happen again!

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Are you trying to equate workplaces with schools? It's been a few years since I was in school but I distinctly remember people running through the corridors, pushing others out of the way on stairs, lads wresting and horseplaying in the class room, books etc being thrown around but hey if that's the kind of workplace you work in good for you.

Pathetic.

The fact of the matter is that pregnancy is no barrier to being active to a degree well compatible with being present on school grounds. The question is why you felt the need to come up with an entirely irrelevant argument to defend the undefendable.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

Yeah because being a single teenage mother is easy.

We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse. As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply. On the other hand the girl could be a real victim and the last thing she needs is the whole country looking at her.

Neither school nor victim are named.

timewilltell

I really don't think a school Principal that counts having a BOM and admissions policy as
'frills'
can be taken seriously.

Source: Section 3:10

prinz

ash23 wrote: »

Eh, pregnant teachers anyone?
I recall teachers in my school being pregnant so i don't see why it would be a health and safety issue for a student.

and I recall students in my school having various injuries, cuts, bruises, sprains, a hand through a glass window etc.... but not one relating to a teacher..

eviltwin

prinz wrote: »

and I recall students in my school having various injuries, cuts, bruises, sprains, a hand through a glass window etc.... but not one relating to a teacher..

Ah come on Prinz, you don't really think this girl didn't get her place over a health and safety issue do you? The comments alone made about her are enough to show exactly what this muppet thinks of teen mums.

ash23

prinz wrote: »

and I recall students in my school having various injuries, cuts, bruises, sprains, a hand through a glass window etc.... but not one relating to a teacher..

I'm pretty sure that teenagers are not so moronic and stupid that they would put a pregnant girl at risk. I know some of the people in our school did some awful stupid things but funnily enough the majority of students got through school unscathed.
Even the pregnant ones.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

and I recall students in my school having various injuries, cuts, bruises, sprains, a hand through a glass window etc.... but not one relating to a teacher..

x teachers : (x * 25) students

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

Let's not get all hormonal here like 16 year old pregnant girls, At least I know how to use contraception and consider the life the child will have before bringing it in to the world.:p

I'm not hormonal.
you can prepare all you like but you cannot know the future or what changes will occur. If we all had a crystal ball like you life would be boring.

I'm amazed you need to use contraception must be your charming personality that wins them over.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Pathetic.
The fact of the matter is that pregnancy is no barrier to being active to a degree well compatible with being present on school grounds....

Yes Nodin dear. Forgive me for having concerns for the safety of a pregnant teenager and that of her unborn, because teenagers in schools tend to be a rowdy bunch and personally I'd rather a young lady be safe than sorry. How pathetic of me.

paddyandy

Pregnant Girls bring many problems to schools .The potential for massive litigation costs being only one of them .

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah come on Prinz, you don't really think this girl didn't get her place over a health and safety issue do you? The comments alone made about her are enough to show exactly what this muppet thinks of teen mums.

In this case? No, not at all, I thought that might've been covered when I called the principal a halfwit when it was clear she'd already had her baby. The point about health and safety concerns was more about pregnant girls in schools in general, but apparently there's nothing to worry, at all, schoolkids are all well behaved and never get up to anything that could endanger a fellow pupil.

Edit: Ah now I being accused of discrimination. Lol.

hondasam

prinz wrote: »

Yes Nodin dear. Forgive me for having concerns for the safety of a pregnant teenager and that of her unborn, because teenagers in schools tend to be a rowdy bunch and personally I'd rather a young lady be safe than sorry. How pathetic of me.

Do you think all pregnant women should be wrapped in cotton wool for nine months? Age does not matter.

dvpower

ash23 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that teenagers are not so moronic and stupid that they would put a pregnant girl at risk. I know some of the people in our school did some awful stupid things but funnily enough the majority of students got through school unscathed.
Even the pregnant ones.

In this case, the girl went on 'maternity leave' towards the end of her pregnancy
'during which period she received Home Tuition through the Department of Education and Skills.'.

A simple bit of common sense and some flexibility is all that was required here. Some would prefer exclusion and dress it up as concern for the girl. At least the school principal was up front with his discrimination.

Biggins

paddyandy wrote: »

Pregnant Girls bring many problems to schools .The potential for massive litigation costs being only one of them .

O' well there is a justified case for allowing discrimination if ever I saw one!

...What daftness!

dvpower

paddyandy wrote: »

Pregnant Girls bring many problems to schools .The potential for massive litigation costs being only one of them .

You'll be able to point us to the various cases involving 'massive litigation' involving pregnant girls in Irish schools that you're aware of, won't you?

The only massive litigation costs that I'm aware of are the costs we are paying from the last time we excluded young pregnant girls from society.

dashboard_hula

Leaving aside the pearl clutching for a second, the school looks from the report that it's run by one man, his son, no parent involvement, no complaints procedure, no appeals procedure and absolutely no processes beyond his own moral outrage.

He has refused to co-operate with either the Department of Education or the Childrens Ombudsman. He's denying the young person admission citing Catholic ethos and yet he's refusing to follow that ethos in the same breath. The Catholic "ethos" of the school is protected by Irish law and he's refusing to adhere to it.

And he's getting State funding.

I'd like my money back please.

lkdsl

I can't believe some of the posts in this thread. It's as if we have learnt nothing in 50 years. As someone who's mother was forced to give up her child (me) for adoption, the vitriol surrounding this girl is very hard to take. Please let me make a few points:
1. We have no idea of the circumstances by which she got pregnant - she hardly planned it. She may have had little responsibility for it. We simply don't know and can't assume.
2. She is pregnant and of school age. What are she and her parents supposed to do? She wants, needs and is entitled to an education, just like any other girl of her age.
3. What benefit is it to her, to her family, and to her community if she is denied access to education? Being a parent is hard; being a single parent must be harder; why should we make it any harder for her?
4. If you were her father, mother, brother or sister, what would you do? And what would you want and expect from the school?

Rant over. Sorry, but I'm very angry and upset by some of the daft comments here.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

In this case, the girl went on 'maternity leave' towards the end of her pregnancy
'during which period she received Home Tuition through the Department of Education and Skills.'.A simple bit of common sense and some flexibility is all that was required here..

Ah yes, when someone else says it i'ts 'common sense and flexibility'. However when I raise concerns (which would lead to exactly the same approach which I think is best) with regard to pregnant girls in schools......amazeballs.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

You'll be able to point us to the various cases involving 'massive litigation' involving pregnant girls in Irish schools that you're aware of, won't you?

The only massive litigation costs that I'm aware of are the costs we are paying from the last time we excluded young pregnant girls from society.

100% true.

Add to that, pregnant girls are working in many work places, walking around all day doing other jobs in employment or beyond it on commercial properties besides socially.

...But god forbid they have the nerve to go to a place where they could sit down in safety and while doing so, get a further education.
...Now that would be a terrible thing to allow!

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

Ah yes, when someone else says it i'ts 'common sense and flexibility'. However when I raise concerns (which would lead to exactly the same approach which I think is best) with regard to pregnant girls in schools......

what about the following year when she was refused a place because she is a single mother?

prinz

koth wrote: »

what about the following year when she was refused a place because she is a single mother?

When I was clear on that I said the principal was acting like a halfwit for refusing her a place.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422592&postcount=274 Here.

Since then people have just being trying their best to get offended over nothing.

paddyandy

dvpower wrote: »

You'll be able to point us to the various cases involving 'massive litigation' involving pregnant girls in Irish schools that you're aware of, won't you?

The only massive litigation costs that I'm aware of are the costs we are paying from the last time we excluded young pregnant girls from society.

It was STILL the right decision . We don't need a precedent; schools are cash-strapped enough as it is .

Dravokivich

micropig wrote: »

Let's not get all hormonal here like 16 year old pregnant girls, At least I know how to use contraception and consider the life the child will have before bringing it in to the world.:p

If only this thread was about you...

micropig wrote: »

Posters hear make me laugh

...some make me shudder

micropig wrote: »

16 year old pregnant, hoping through 2/3 different schools..no problem, lets all bow to her needs, perfectly fine in this day and age, ignorance about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy is perfectly acceptable and widespread

1 school in the country doesn't want to take her in as it is against their ethos...well lets force the school to change their ethos and demand they let her in because she wants to go there

What happened in previous schools is irrelevant, but a factor I could guess is she may have wished to get away from an environment which led her to become pregnant. The only school rejecting her, is one she wants to attend.

micropig wrote: »

It's all the schools fault, where is her parents responsibility in this?

I can't tell what the kind of attitude is being put forward here. Its either:

-Ignorance
-Arogance
-Flat out studipity

The only issue at hand with the school in question is that they refused her admittance. I'm not too sure where you wish to place responsibilty on the parents, unless you expect adolescents to bunk with their folks until they've been shown to be sexually responsible.

Because that's how ridiculas it reads.

micropig wrote: »

State is providing her with an education, if it's not the type of education her parents, are satisfied with, they should hire a tutor

There is nothing mentioned of the state refusing her an education, the investigation is the state looking into why 1 of it's instituitions rejected her the availablity of an education based on a complaint lodged by her. So she is attending another school, that doesn't excuse why this school responded in the manner it did. Imposing some idea of elitism and discarding her as it did.

luckyfrank

luckyfrank wrote: »

school kids shouldnt really be getting pregnant

Fair enough but the issue here is the pontification of this so called 'Catholic ethos' by the School Head.

We all know what the 'Catholic Ethos' consists of by now and those who preached it were the ones who helped cover up alot of their colleagues 'sins' so they should spare us their bullsh*t because they are fooling absolutely know one.

While teenage pregnancy is not advisable, neither is it a crime and the girl doesnt deserve to be painted as a social pariah by a bigot who is promoting an ethos that has quite frankly been exposed as fraudulent, double standardised, and in alot of cases, elitist.

Biggins

paddyandy wrote: »

It was STILL the right decision . We don't need a precedent; schools are cash-strapped enough as it is .

O' for gods sake.
If we start fearing the solicitor for everything we do or allow, we would be afraid to even step outside our doors for crying out loud - and the world would be a far worse off place, if not the people in it!

Again, more daftness.

This is Ireland, not America yet were there is fierce over-reactions to the power of fearing litigation!

Lets all crap ourselves, one person might sue a school for the first time in the history of the state because she might have reason to - lets instead ban all females instead nationwide from every education building!
Yea, that sounds like good sense!

Utter stupidity!

Rolli

Davidth88 wrote: »

A report of a school not allowing a girl to enrol because she is pregnant has come to light.

"We do not take single young girls who are mothers. This is not a suitable school for such "

"This school is NOT a haven for young pregnant people or for young mothers"

This is a STATE funded school , all be it run by what seems to be a very single minded person.


http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/Complaint/OCOInvestigationretheactionsofSchoolA.pdf

IMO , such a person should not be running a school , really this has no place in a modern country , if we read about this in the Daily Fail in Afghanistan we would all be tutting over our cappucinos wouldn't we !!

I actually don't see anything wrong with this.

paddyandy

Biggins wrote: »

O' for gods sake.
If we start fearing the solicitor for everything we do or allow, we would be afraid to even step outside our doors for crying out loud!

Again, more daftness.

for everything we do ? where does that idea come from?
your own daftness ..

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Ah yes, when someone else says it i'ts 'common sense and flexibility'. However when I raise concerns (which would lead to exactly the same approach which I think is best) with regard to pregnant girls in schools......amazeballs.

Its not all about you Prinz

And, to be clear, what I categorised as 'common sense and flexibility' was how the school she did attend dealt with her, not what 'someone else' said.

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

When I was clear on that I said the principal was acting like a halfwit for refusing her a place.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422592&postcount=274 Here.

Since then people have just being trying their best to get offended over nothing.

Thanks for the link. Have been doing my best to keep up with the thread but missed that post.

dvpower

paddyandy wrote: »

It was STILL the right decision . We don't need a precedent; schools are cash-strapped enough as it is .

What? You mean you can't identify 'massive litigation' costs. I'm amazed (not really).

Biggins

paddyandy wrote: »

for everything we do ? where does that idea come from?
your own daftness ..

Aaa... ok! :pac:
I'm the one that's daft! LOL

Right... :pac:

eviltwin

All this is moot as there is a world of difference between asking someone to stay at home for a few months for their own health and safety and another for a complete ban on that person being able to return to school because you don't agree with her decisions.

Quite frankly the time has come for this state to segregate religion (and by that i mean all religions) and education in terms of state funded schools.

Religion should be extra curricular to school. This '<insert religion here> ethos' argument is absolute nonsense and has no place in modern society.

hondasam

paddyandy wrote: »

It was STILL the right decision . We don't need a precedent; schools are cash-strapped enough as it is .

Have you any idea the amount of teenage pregnancy in Ireland? Lots of schools have pregnant mothers attending every day.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

...Religion should be extra curricular to school. This '<insert religion here> ethos' argument is absolute nonsense and has no place in modern society.

Thats EXACTLY what happens in the "Educate Together" school system.
A system I am glad to say that my four kids are/will be going through presently and soon.
The religions are optional extra curricular actives outside standard educational hours.
Their system by the way, I'm also glad to say, is presently the fastest educational growing system in Ireland now and is being used as a basis for all other new schools presently in the future piple line.

hondasam wrote: »

Have you any idea the amount of teenage pregnancy in Ireland? Lots of schools have pregnant mothers attending every day.

I don't think he has an idea of a number of things - at all!

SerialComplaint

Bigtoe107 wrote: »

This is retarded imo, a state funded school should not have the right to exclude any pupils based on some bull**** religious ethos. It's actually making me angry thinking how much sway and power the church still has in this country

Yes, the power and sway of some people who consider themselves to be the Church makes me angry too. Almost as angry as I get when people use 'retarded' as a derogatory term. That needs to change too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T549VoLca_Q

hondasam

hondasam wrote: »

Have you any idea the amount of teenage pregnancy in Ireland? Lots of schools have pregnant mothers attending every day.

+1. in the real world a job interviewer cant ask any discriminatory questions and one of the 9 grounds is regards to family, children, etc. The same rules should apply to schools....even private schools since private companies cant ask these questions.

No church has any right to preach morality

prinz

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite frankly the time has come for this state to segregate religion (and by that i mean all religions) and education in terms of state funded schools. Religion should be extra curricular to school..

Religious instruction in terms of particular religions should be, but religion (as in a bit of education about all the major world religions) should be kept on as a broader subject within school hours IMO, as part of a religion/philosophy/ethics subject.

prinz

prinz wrote: »

Religious instruction in terms of particular religions should be, but religion (as in a bit of education about all the major world religions) should be kept on as a broader subject within school hours IMO, as part of a religion/philosophy/ethics subject.

Id go along with that and thats the way religion is pretty much thought these times.

eviltwin

Theology not doctrine is the way to go

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes Nodin dear..

Not often I hear (or read) that, it has to be said.

prinz wrote: »

Forgive me for having concerns for the safety of a pregnant teenager and that of her unborn, because teenagers in schools tend to be a rowdy bunch and personally I'd rather a young lady be safe than sorry. How pathetic of me.

Your concern looked to be to provide a defence for the school, rather than any concern for the young woman in question. Made odd, of course, by the fact she'd had the child by the time she'd applied the second time.

Paparazzo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Yes, the power and sway of some people who consider themselves to be the Church makes me angry too. Almost as angry as I get when people use 'retarded' as a derogatory term. That needs to change too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T549VoLca_Q

re·tard   /rɪˈtɑrd, for 1–3, 5; ˈritɑrd for 4/ Show Spelled[ri-tahrd, for 1–3, 5; ree-tahrd for 4] verb (used with object)
1. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

Sounds like the perfect word for this situation

dark crystal

micropig wrote: »

Let's not get all hormonal here like 16 year old pregnant girls, At least I know how to use contraception and consider the life the child will have before bringing it in to the world.:p


Posters hear make me laugh

16 year old pregnant, hoping through 2/3 different schools..no problem, lets all bow to her needs, perfectly fine in this day and age, ignorance about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy is perfectly acceptable and widespread

1 school in the country doesn't want to take her in as it is against their ethos...well lets force the school to change their ethos and demand they let her in because she wants to go there


It's all the schools fault, where is her parents responsibility in this?


State is providing her with an education, if it's not the type of education her parents, are satisfied with, they should hire a tutor

I'll stop getting all hormonal like a 16 year old when you stop spelling like one. *insert smiley here*

No one's saying it's all the school's fault she's pregnant, it's simply their responsibility to educate her, not judge her.

As for parental responsibility, even the best parents can find themselves in situations they've warned their kids against. Teenagers have a funny thing called 'their own minds'.

Again, you have trouble understanding the concept of the non-perfect human.

Paparazzo

The irony in all this is that if she had an abortion or used contraception, she'd be accepted into the school.

Ghost Buster

Am i the one who finds it.....odd... a catholic ethos school, instilling the teachings of Christ in its students turning away a pregnant girls and refusing to give her an education.