What makes different forms of provision more or less suitable for different young women, and, in LEAs with a choice of provision, what are

the factors influencing a young mother’s choice?

The suitability of different forms of provision for different young women is influenced by a range of factors including the young woman’s health, previous educational experiences, her relationship with peers and the school’s ability and willingness to accommodate her changing needs. Above all, the most important issue for the young women was the availability of a range of provision offering a real choice to the young woman. Having influence over timetabling, rest-breaks, extra work support and so on, was also important, especially where the only alternative to mainstream (for more than the maternity absence period) was home tuition and therefore young women were limited in terms of choice of location.

For some young women and schools, pregnancy is a minor set back in an otherwise good school career. For others, it is yet another negative influence on the pupil/school relationship. Where the latter was the case, a move to an alternative form of education was generally beneficial. However, where the school took the pregnancy as an opportunity to repair the relationship, and to discuss, often long standing problems, the pregnancy could provide a turning point for the pupil/school relationship and staying in mainstream was more appropriate. Unfortunately, there were only a few examples of this happening.

There was very clear evidence that those young women who had been poor attendees or excluded prior to pregnancy benefited hugely from attending specialist units and education other provisions. Their attendance improved dramatically and many achieved levels of attainment, which would have been unthinkable within mainstream school.

Where a choice of provision is available, the reaction and attitude of the school and peers is a major determinant in the choices a young woman makes. Despite the considerable work done by reintegration officers to improve the ethos in schools, in some LEAs too many schools have negative and unsupportive

attitudes when a young woman discloses her pregnancy. Young women reported that in a considerable number of cases, this manifested itself as actively encouraging the young woman to leave or even telling her to do so. Whilst some schools offered to arrange alternative education for the young women, this does not take away from the fact that schools should not exclude on the basis of pregnancy.

Further still, the majority of schools in Chapter 4 did not actively accept that their attitudes might impact upon a pregnant young woman’s desire to remain in mainstream or move to an alternative location during pregnancy. On the contrary, very few schools suggested that their attitudes, or how they handled the news of the pregnancy, might potentially act as a barrier to her education.

Schools’ attitudes appear themselves to be conditioned largely by young women’s previous attendance and relationship with the school. Where the young woman was previously a good attendee and had a good relationship with teachers, she is less likely to be encouraged to leave.

Many young women chose to move to an alternative educational location, especially specialist units where these were available, because they perceived it would be an easier environment in which to manage pregnancy and school work, or because they were poor attendees at their school prior to the pregnancy.

Specialist units can accommodate the health and safety needs of young pregnant woman as well as provide more customised educational support in smaller classes, even one to one tuition if necessary.

On the whole, post-birth location was determined by the availability of different locations after the birth. The majority of young women who had moved during their pregnancy to a specialist unit remained there post-birth. In one LEA, however, the units were intended only as a maternity provision with a view to reintegration back into mainstream school when the baby was three months old.

Where this reintegration was unsuccessful, however, the reintegration officer would usually arrange for that young woman to return to the unit rather than risk total disengagement post-birth. This was, however, only possible if there was space within the units.

The majority of young women who attended specialist units, education other (generic) and long-term home tuition generally returned to those locations post-birth. Those using specialist units as a maternity provision and those attending

education other (pregnancy specific) more commonly returned to mainstream school.

Many young women chose to go back to their during-pregnancy location if post-birth places were available in it (this includes those who had remained in mainstream). There were various reasons including:

ƒ positive teachers’ attitudes,

ƒ enjoyment of location (and education in that location) during pregnancy,

ƒ work support during pregnancy,

ƒ positive environment,

ƒ practical (motherhood) support

ƒ childcare, especially where onsite location available.

ƒ support of friends,

o in school – sense of normality from having the same friends.

o in alternatives – being with others ‘in the same boat’.

For those attending specialist units the most influential factors impacting on post-birth return were the onsite childcare facilities; work, practical and emotional support; and the fact that these locations were often set up to deal with post-birth issues (such as ill-health of mother/ or baby). These factors were also influential in the timing of post-birth return.

Mothers returning to school or education other (generic) generally had to wait until they had had a 6-week post-natal check before they could return. As many childcare providers (such as nurseries and crèches) would not take babies under a certain age (usually one year to 18 months), this meant that if family could not help or the childcare provision did not take very young babies. Therefore, mothers would often be delayed further in their return to education. Mothers attending specialist units were often able to return much quicker (on average after 3 weeks in comparison to 6.5 weeks in mainstream) because childcare was onsite³⁷ and because the units were set up to deal with post-birth health issues.

All of the young women who were interviewed were asked ‘What help do you think young mothers should get to return to school/ education pre-16? What

37 Although none of the interview sample returned to education other (pregnancy specific) post-birth 50% of the overall baseline sample did. It is likely that return patterns for this location would be similar to that of specialist units because of onsite childcare.

would make it easier?’ Childcare was highlighted by the entire interview sample.

Other key issues included issues such as transport, supportive teachers and flexible timetables. For those who had experienced reintegration officer support, this was also highly valued as something other pregnant young women and young mothers should have access to.

A very high proportion of the young women indicated that access to a specialist unit would help re-engagement. What is particularly significant about this point is that this it often came unprompted from young women who had never experienced this type of provision and from those who had had good experiences of mainstream.

6.32 Which forms of provision are likely to maximise a young mother’s