“Students Getting Pregnant Are Not Gonna Go Nowhere”: Manifestations of Stigma in Adolescent Mothers’ Educational Environment

Participants

The sample for this study was drawn from a larger study of pregnant and parenting adolescents who participated in a relationship education program during the 2014-2015 school year. Although both fathers and mothers participated in the focus groups conducted at the end of each semester, due to the small number of fathers (n = 39), we only analyzed data from the 83 mothers who were present. The final sample was predominately Hispanic (95.2%), which was reflective of the pregnant and parenting populations at these schools. The adolescents ranged in age from 14 to 19 years (M = 16.7), and the majority (77.1%) were already parenting when they enrolled in the program.

Procedures

Following approval from the university’s institutional review board, we recruited pregnant and parenting adolescents enrolled in six high schools in central Texas to participate in a program focused on enhancing relationship, job readiness, and financial literacy skills. These schools were selected because they provided additional services for pregnant and parenting students. Although the services varied across schools, they all provided “academic services to the student at home when a valid medical necessity for confinement during the pregnancy prenatal or postpartum periods prevent[ed] the student from attending classes” (Texas Education Agency, n.d.), some level of case management and service coordination, instruction related to child development and parenting, and, in all but one case, child care. To examine the effectiveness of our program, we conducted 10 focus groups at the end of the fall semester and nine focus groups at the end of the spring semester. The focus groups were conducted in a classroom setting during the school day, and the students received a small token of appreciation for their participation (e.g., a travel mug). They lasted an average 38 minutes (range = 22-50 minutes) and had an average of seven participants in each group (range = 2-13). The moderator, assisted by a note taker, followed a semi-structured interview protocol to ensure the same questions were asked; however, probes based on the participants’ responses followed each question. Although we did not ask whether the mothers felt “stigmatized,” it was commonly discussed when they responded to questions such as the following: Imagine you are going to sit down with people who are in charge (principals, teachers, etc.), what would you tell them about what pregnant and parenting teens need? What is it like to be a pregnant or parenting teen at this school? To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to all participants and all identifying characteristics were omitted.

Data Analysis

After the interviews were transcribed verbatim, the data were analyzed by a team of coders to ensure a more reliable and valid analysis (Berg, 1998). Specifically, four coders used the steps outlined by Braun and Clark (2006) to conduct a thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was chosen due to the “robust, systematic framework for coding” it offers (Braun & Clark, 2014, p. 1). Inductive coding was used because it allowed the research team to identify patterns in the data to establish themes, granting a rich understanding of how adolescent mothers felt they were viewed by individuals in their educational environment (Braun & Clark, 2006, 2014). Following Braun and Clark’s (2006) steps for conducting a thematic analysis, familiarity with the data was first established as the researchers independently read each transcript and made notes regarding patterns that emerged. Focus group notes were also reviewed to assess the nonverbal responses to both the interviewer and other participants. Second, initial codes were generated from the data (Braun & Clark, 2006). This step was completed by four members of the research team who identified broad codes. Discussions of stigma arose naturally from the data, and researchers sensitized themselves to this subject, identifying it as it arose in subsequent readings. Next, codes pertaining specifically to how the adolescent mothers’ felt individuals in their schools (i.e., teachers, administrators, peers) viewed them were organized into themes (Braun & Clark, 2006) using NVivo10 software. It is important to note, as experiences of stigma affect the stigmatized individual and not the person, people, or institutions imposing it, an ontological perspective was taken in this analysis, indicating that the mothers’ experiences were valid constructions of reality, regardless of intent (Creswell, 2013). Fourth, these themes were reviewed and refined as they were collapsed, separated, and reorganized as needed into themes related to adolescent mothers’ perceptions of how individuals within the school viewed them, how these views shaped their educational experiences, and how these experiences could be improved (Braun & Clark, 2006). During this stage, the research team met and resolved coding discrepancies by reaching consensus regarding the best representation of the data. Last, the themes were clearly defined and named (Braun & Clark, 2006) based on Pryor and Reeder’s (2011) manifestations of stigma.

Over the course of the analysis, we followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four criteria for trustworthiness—credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability. Credibility was ensured through memo writing by the research team as we developed themes that were reviewed for authenticity and representativeness in the data. Credibility was increased as the team met to discuss how the themes should be organized (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Second, although it was not possible to ensure the transferability to other populations, descriptions of the analysis were thorough enough to replicate the study in other settings (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Third, dependability of the findings was established through a comprehensive audit trail kept over the course of the analysis (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Last, confirmability was established through triangulation with current literature (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Public Stigma

Mothers at five of the six campuses described experiencing public stigma by both adults and their non-parenting peers. To illustrate, Jackie described feeling stigmatized by “teachers, bosses, and other adults” who believed the “stereotype toward” adolescent parents. When Christina said, “a lot of teachers here judge,” many of her classmates agreed. Sofia explained she knew she was being judged by “the way they look at you! Like, one of our teachers, [when] they heard I had a child, they looked at me weird.” One mother elaborated, “they sit there and they’ll tell you, ‘why did you get pregnant so young?’” Ariana shared, “I don’t even know them and they talk bad.”

In addition to these statements describing broad experiences of public stigma, several of the mothers went on to provide specific examples of when they felt their teachers or coaches believed they were “not going to do nothing with their lives.” To illustrate, Jackie recalled,

Ever since I got pregnant a lot of coaches looked down, thinking I was gonna ruin my life . . . So there were a lot of teachers and coaches, like, all of them, they like to talk about other students. And that’s why it’s so hard to hear because we can never get away from that problem because a lot of the coaches and teachers feel like the students that are getting pregnant, they’re not gonna go nowhere.

She also described how teachers and administrators “feel like we cannot do the same as they would as an adult.” Similarly, Brooke reported how she felt teachers at her school “make it negative instead of saying a positive. Like, ‘oh she is going to graduate even with her baby.’ [It’s] like, ‘she ruined her life.’ And they’ll say it in front of the whole class.” Serena’s wish that the teachers would “not [look] down at them, but instead [try] to help them out and understand them and what they’re going through” summarized what many of these adolescent mothers were feeling.

Experiences of public stigma were not exclusive to adults within the schools; some of the mothers also described being stigmatized by their non-parenting peers. To illustrate, Brooke shared, “I have this girl, I’m always getting into it with her ‘cause she always got something to say about teen moms.” Jackie also discussed how “a lot of people talk about people who were pregnant or ‘oh, they’re hoes because they got pregnant.’” A group of mothers described how they frequently experienced feeling stigmatized by their peers:

Although, as Emilia stated, “[they] act like [they] didn’t misbehave at one point. No one’s perfect.”

Self-Stigma

Despite the public stigma many of these mothers described, the stigma did not manifest as self-stigma. In fact, mothers at all campuses discussed how motivation came as a result of the stigma they experienced in their school environment. Jackie shared how she and her peers “prove so much more . . . ’cause we accomplished so much.” She also noted how the adolescent parents at her school had the highest graduation rate in their school district: “I’m not saying that [other schools’] teen parents don’t graduate, but . . . we have the highest percentage of [adolescent parent] graduation rates.” In spite of feeling stigmatized, many of the mothers described how they stayed motivated to prove they could succeed for their child. Layla described how she and the other mothers were working to “finish high school and go to college and get a good career.” Juliana echoed these sentiments, recalling how she and her partner “were just talking about what’s best for our child and that’s why we’re going to finish school.” Sofia also described how she maintained motivation in the face of others thinking she would fail due to her parenting status: “I just think that everything I’m doing is for [my son], for his future.”

Institutional Stigma

In addition to the public stigma many of the adolescent mothers faced, students at four of the schools also discussed several school policies that made it difficult for them to succeed academically. Although the policies they discussed varied across campuses, they provided critical insights regarding issues parents at other high schools might face. For instance, the mothers at two campuses felt penalized when they had to be absent or tardy for obligations faced by parents, regardless of age, such as “doctor’s appointments.” These policies, which did not take into account the mothers’ parenting status, made it difficult to balance parenting with their academic obligations. The mothers wished for either more time or the ability to “come to school a bit later and leave a little early” so they did not fall behind.

These policies extended to their time spent on campus as well. For example, at another campus, Sara and Elisa both described how school policies made it difficult for them to provide breast milk for their child. Sara shared, “I nurse in the [child care] center, and if I’m late [to class], [the teachers are] like, ‘well, you’re late. You’re in the building, you’re late.’ They don’t care. They count you late, no matter what you do.” Elisa recalled a similar instance: “I go to pump [and when I get back] no one’s there to open the door and [teachers] see me; [they] won’t open it so I walk all the way and then I’m 20 minutes late.”

Policies that placed attendance against the ability to parent also extended to feelings of inadequate maternity leave for mothers at two of the schools in our study. To illustrate, Mariana described the double standards they perceived regarding these policies compared with adult staff. “When the teacher’s pregnant, they get like three months off, four . . . And they only give us six weeks . . . And then they’re like, ‘we have kids.’. . . [I’m like], ‘come back in six weeks too ‘cause . . . we did it.’” At another school, a couple of mothers discussed how the fathers of their children had no paternity leave, questioning, “why don’t the dads get six weeks off like the mom?” After they posed this question, a number of mothers in the group agreed. They also shared how the addition of an adequate paternity leave policy would make their transition to parenthood “helpful” and “a lot easier.”

Last, students at three of the five schools that provided child care discussed how, despite having their child enrolled in the school’s child care center, they were not able to see their child during the day. Miranda, an underclassman, “wish[ed] the daycare was [on campus]” because “we can’t leave, only seniors [can leave campus].” Her classmate, Lucia, added, “We should be able to see our babies during lunch. Our lunch is an hour.” At other schools, to receive the benefit of child care the parents had to attend “all the [lunch] groups and they’re like every week day.” Although these lunch groups were designed to teach skills that benefited the parents, many, like Emilia, expressed she would much rather “be with [her] child” during lunch. The policies against allowing them to see their children during the day made it, as Ashley described, “harder for me ‘cause I don’t wanna miss things that happen with my kid.” Moreover, because many of the mothers worked, not being able to see their children during the school day was especially difficult. As Sofia shared, “During the week I come to school and then I work almost the whole weekend. So, it’s really hard.”