The issue of rehabilitation for girls who have become pregnant while attending school has been a contentious one for a long time. It has come into the spotlight again with the disclosure by Beryl Weir, the executive director of the Women's Centre Foundation, that there is still a measure of resistance on the part of some school principals to readmit the girls after they have given birth, thus hindering them in the quest to continue their education.

While admitting that there are some schools which recognise the value of giving the girls a second chance, the Women's Centre leader is concerned that there are others who remain obdurate. It is believed in some quarters that their reluctance seems to be grounded in fears that a girl who has become a mother before completing her studies will somehow 'contaminate' the morals of her peers. Furthermore, there is the feeling, in some sections of the community, that the offending girl should be punished rather than appear to be rewarded.

The Women's Centre, which has been in existence for almost 30 years, serves to facilitate the rehabilitation of pregnant schoolgirls through programmes islandwide, wherein they are facilitated to keep up with their education even during pregnancy, and to be trained to cope with what follows.

It can be argued that our schools, with the myriad of problems which they face under normal circumstances, are not equipped to fulfil that mission. This might account for the rejection of the girls as regular students by the principals of the institutions in which they were enrolled up to the time of their 'fall from grace.'

The Education Act/Education Regulations 1980 (Section 31), however, seems to indicate that the system recognises the special needs of the girls. While the regulation sanctions the exclusion of a student from the institution (school) for the duration of the pregnancy, it also advises that "The minister may take such steps as may be necessary to assist the student to continue her education in that institution or, if convenient, in another public education institution."

On the face of it, the system does not advocate abandonment of the young mother in her time of need. However, the conciliatory language of the regulations (may - not shall or must), seems to provide an 'out' for some principals to turn away young mothers from continuing their education even in the same school which they were attending when they embarked on their premature journey into motherhood.

Considering that the Education Regulations 1980 (Section 31) are now well over two decades old, and accepting the fact that teenage pregnancy continues to be a social problem, it would not be unreasonable to consider revisiting the legislation as well as taking a fresh look at the issue as raised by the Women's Centre Foundation.

The temptation should be resisted to become bogged down in the usual pietistic arguments and squabbles, and concentrate instead on the fact that there is an urgent human need to be addressed. In that context, the language of Education Regulations 1980, Section 31, paragraphs 2 and 3, might well be sharpened and given stronger focus, to suggest redemption rather than condemnation.