School Dress Codes? Uniforms?

[The Comedian]

I playfully brought up the benefits of school uniforms in a recent blog post. And several people responded to this idea with concern.

So if your school were to require student uniforms, what would be your concerns?

Speaking for uniforms, I can say that they would help to limit social stigmatization, sexualization, and vulgarity. They would also reduce the overall cost of clothing for families. And I think serious cat would approve of them (waves to Serious cat) because they would help create a more studious atmosphere in general (but by no means create one).

[Niamh]

I went to schools with uniforms all my life. There are very few schools here that dont have uniforms and i think its better that schools have uniforms. Yes they can be ugly as hell but there is less chance of someone being bullied because they are not in with the latest fashion, they've been wearing the same clothes for most of the year.
In away they create an equality. Not all schools have people from the same backround. Where i went to secondary school there were girls from working class areas like me with others from more middle class and some upper class in the one classroom. Uniforms meant that we were treated the same.
And i dont think wearing uniforms takes away from your individuality. In fact i think they help inhance who you are as an individual because people focus on the type of person you are and not what you are wering and were you are from. You express yourself through speech and actions rather that making a statement through what you wear. Its better for personal developement.

If i had kids i'd rather send them to a school with a uniform than one with no uniform.

[papayahed]

I wore uniforms all through grade school and high school. I don't have a problem with uniforms at all, for one thing I never had to think about what to wear and it was easy to get dressed in the morning. But I don't think uniforms, at least in my case, are the great equalizer that some people think they are, we still had cliches, we still knew which kids had money and which didn't (It was all about the accessories). There was still sexualization, as soon as we got out of school the skirts were hiked up and the blouses unbuttoned. We still had drug and alcohol issues. I can't say if it was better or worse then schools without uniforms but if I had my choice I'd pick uniforms every time.

[MarkBastable]

I wore uniform at school, from the age of five. At my grammar school (eleven to eighteen - so, what's that to Americans? high school?), the rules for the uniform were arcane and apparently arbitrary. They were also enforced.

The upshot is that nothing on God's earth would now get me into a uniform, and throughout my adult life I've avoided any job, organisation, affiliation or even pastime that required me to wear one.

For that reason, I'm very much in favour of school uniforms, because I think that they encourage young people to consider opposing the kind of authority that insists upon conformity.

[BienvenuJDC]

As a parent I would be all for it...for all the positive reasons already shared.

[The Comedian]

But I don't think uniforms, at least in my case, are the great equalizer that some people think they are, we still had cliches, we still knew which kids had money and which didn't (It was all about the accessories).

I don't really think that they are a great equalizer, but I do think that help to create, at least, and equalized air and studiousness. Again, I don't think that they are or would be a social wonder drug, but rather a nail in more stable framework.


There was still sexualization, as soon as we got out of school the skirts were hiked up and the blouses unbuttoned. We still had drug and alcohol issues.

I'm fine with this (my italics) -- in many ways this sort of stuff is part of adolescence.


I'm very much in favour of school uniforms, because I think that they encourage young people to consider opposing the kind of authority that insists upon conformity.

Ha! I like this sort of thinking. And I agree with it completely -- as a teacher (community college level), I see many students who like to assert their independence by breaking grammar rules they cannot define, let alone follow. Yes, first know the authority, then follow the authority, then challenge the authority.

[OrphanPip]

I feel pretty much the same as Papaya, I wore uniforms all through primary and secondary school and I don't think it really had all that much of an equalizing influence. On the other hand, I don't think it had any negative effects either. Like Niamh said, it is unusual for a school not to require a uniform here as well.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z241/i_feel_tiredsleepy/school.jpg

My school had pretty lax uniform rules though.

[TheFifthElement]

Hi Comedian, it’s a good question. My issue with uniforms is that it seems to totally miss the point. I agree, in part, with what you’ve said here:

I don't really think that they are a great equalizer...Again, I don't think that they are or would be a social wonder drug, but rather a nail in more stable framework.
that uniforms do not equalise and that they’re not a social wonder drug, but the problem is that some people think they are. So kids are poor or neglected and get picked on, let’s stick them in uniform. Sure they still might be poor and get picked on but it’ll have nothing to do with their clothes and perhaps we adults won't be able to see it anymore. So kids are disruptive in class, just stick them in uniform and suddenly they’ll behave like angels and maths will just sink in. Hmm, I don’t think so. I think the uniform is treated like a giant sticking plaster, and so long as everything appears okay no one is really bothered if the wound is festering underneath. I think that’s the wrong message and the wrong approach. Personally I’d rather less time was spent worrying about superficial issues and appearances and more time spent addressing the core problems. And spending too much time thinking about and worrying about and policing what people wear does seem rather superficial and it can often be enforced in very superficial ways. For example, my stepson went to a school which required a uniform. One day he woke up and he couldn’t straighten his neck. We took him to the doctor and the doctor said it was just a muscle issue and it would fix itself in a few days but in the meantime he had to wear a surgical collar. So the next day he went to school with his uniform on minus his tie as with the surgical collar he couldn’t actually put his tie on. When he came home he had a letter saying he’d been put on report for not wearing full uniform and not having a note to explain why. It seems his teachers placed more merit on what he was wearing than the fact that he missed as little school as possible and that despite the fact that he was in some pain he knuckled down with his work without compliant or slacking. That just seemed totally ridiculous to me, but such situations are doubtless not unique.

I really don’t think that a uniform policy addresses any of these issues:


I can say that they would help to limit social stigmatization, sexualization, and vulgarity. They would also reduce the overall cost of clothing for families.

because:
1. School uniforms are often very expensive. Certainly more expensive than normal everyday clothes which are subject to considerably more open market forces. A basic school blazer in UK costs £20. I can’t recall ever having the need to spend that much money on one item of clothing for either of my kids. In fact I could probably get them 4 decent quality jumpers for the same amount of money.
2. Even with uniforms there are noticeable differences in the standard of dress which highlights kids’ ‘social status’. Everyone can tell who’s wearing the second hand uniform, or which kid’s shirts are never quite clean or whose trousers are too small or really old. Superficially they might look the same, but to think that kids or an observant adult can’t notice the differences seems flawed.
3. Sexualisation has vastly more to do with self esteem and social awareness/pressure than clothing. Again, uniforms mask the issue but they don’t make it go away. If kids didn’t have to wear a uniform it would be more apparent how big an issue this was and perhaps more could be done to address it. As a separate point expecting 13+ year olds not to become more sexually aware, and not to be dragging that into the classroom with them seem bizarre to me. In a way you’re asking kids to leave their growing up at the door. I don’t think that’s possible.
4. Vulgarity? I’m not sure how school uniforms address vulgarity. Vulgarity is more of a state of mind; if kids want to be vulgar they can do it perfectly well with their mouths. Clothes are not required.

I don’t think uniforms address this either:

but I do think that help to create, at least, and equalized air and studiousness.

because the disruptive kid in class is going to be disruptive no matter what they’re wearing. When I listen to my kids (who wear uniform, it’s pretty standard here now) there seems to be around the same proportion of disruptive kids in their school as there was in mine which had no uniform. A uniform isn’t going to make anyone behave better or make them more interested in studying. In fact for some people it might make things worse. Some people like uniforms, they like the structure of them, but others feel stifled and uncomfortable. Why not have both, and give kids the option to choose what suits them best? After all, if we want kids to be responsible we have to give them responsibility. If they’re not even permitted to decide something as basic as what to wear, what hope is there for them with anything else? And I think this is a big part of the problem. Everyone wants kids to take responsibility, but at the same time most people are a bit reluctant to give it to them.

Don’t get me wrong, I can see what you’re getting at and I don’t think uniforms are entirely without merit, but I think the idea that somehow the education system can separate itself from the influences of the outside world and create a rarefied environment in which kids come and just study without bringing with them the baggage of being a kid, a small human being - bullying, sexuality, poverty, neglect, boredom, apathy, social disparity, alcohol, drugs, aptitude, interests, ability - or that a uniform policy does anything other than turn attention away from those issues seems a little pie in the sky to me. Heck, I work in an office full of adults and we still have those sorts of issues. I think, hard though it is, it is more important to look at things directly than hide them behind an illusion of social cohesion. If we are ever going to stand a chance of actually improving those issues, the process has got to start young.

I also think that a big issue facing the educational system is the way in which information is increasingly condensed into smaller and smaller bites and that is probably part of the problem in the classroom because it seems that kids are more easily distracted. But if you think about it, kids grow up being bombarded with information in shot-doses and then we expect them to be able to go into the classroom and concentrate for 45 minutes on one subject. I think that’s a tough ask. If we want kids to be able to concentrate and study and achieve (whether academically or vocationally – see the ‘should school be compulsory’ thread for more details) we need to engender a culture in which those are the things which are valued, advertised and celebrated rather than, ‘Posh tells Becks: “it’s over!”’

Rant over. Sorry :D

[Katy North]

Personally, I don't think whether wearing uniforms or not greatly matters. However, I do think there is a problem, like TheFifthElement said, with punishing kids because they were wearing something the school deemed "inappropriate" or were not following the dress code. In our school we didn't have uniforms, but there were rules against wearing middrifts, tank tops, and wife beaters. If a kid wore the wrong sort of cloths they'd make them put a baggy shirt over top of it, but they wouldn't write them up or put them in detention... this approach seems the most appropriate to me. The biggest problem I'd have with uniforms is, is the question of what the punishment is if the kid isn't wearing what he's supposed to?

[MarkBastable]

The biggest problem I'd have with uniforms is, is the question of what the punishment is if the kid isn't wearing what he's supposed to?

At my school it was whipping for a first offence, followed by an escalation of punishments for subsequent transgressions that culminated in the public crucifixion of incorrigible non-tuckers-in-of-shirts.

[skib]

I would have rebelled even more if I was required to wear a uniform. A) The few times I've been required to wear a uniform of any sort (usually in band in high school) to be terribly uncomfortable. Marching uniforms are wool, itchy, and hot. My concert uniform cut my air intake by twenty five percent. B) I doubt it would have helped with the 'fashion bullying' at all. If someone wants to make fun of you and beat you up, they'll find a reason. C) I tear clothing up like nobody's business. If I were required to wear something like that, I'd have to get a new one every week.
Now, if 'uniform' meant jeans and a T shirt with comfy boots, you'd not hear a peep out of me.

[Niamh]

If you are not use to wearing a uniform then you'd rebel. I wore one from the time i was 4 years old until i was 17. Because i was use to wearing one, i hadnt a problem with it. Its a normal thing here to wear a school uniform. I wore a work uniform when i worked in Tesco, Dunnes Stores and Hughes and Hughes. I now have to wear a suit because i'm management. The only time i didnt wear a uniform was in college. It was nice not ot wear one, but then i was a student and not wearing a uniform going to classes had a feeling of being grown up about it. I didnt have to tend all classes and wasnt going to get detention for not turning up. It was a different experience. (this is my own personal experience, please dont mock it) I also had no uniform for Archaeology, but in saying that i did have to wear certain work gear.
Uniforms can be so much a part of daily life. As i said before. Its not going to hold a person back.

[applepie]

I have no real issue with school uniforms, but I think that the current skirt/dress pants with a blazer or super preppy sweater is just a bit excessive. Maybe just basic jeans and a school t-shirt would suffice for me. The problem with expensive uniforms is that they still make it easy to spot the kids whose parents had to buy second had. Schools could sell shirts much cheaper, and there is really no excuse for not buying your child 5 new t-shirts or even 10 (5 short sleeve and 5 long sleeve) at $10 or even $15 a piece. You'll spend that much on regular clothing anyway.

I wouldn't mind uniforms, because I do imagine that it will remove at least one distraction from school. So much time and energy for young people is spent on what they wear and deciding who is dressed "correctly" and who isn't. I don't think it is a cure all for a myriad of social issues, but I don't think it can really hurt either. I think that it also prepares children for having to dress a certain way in the workforce. My job is pretty lenient, but many companies have fairly strict codes of dress that need to be adhered to. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect children to dress in a uniformed and appropriate manner for school. You'll still have the cliques and such, but maybe they'll be a little less defined.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I wore a uniform all through high school and I liked it for a few reasons, mainly for the fact that I didn't have to think about what to wear everyday and honestly, it was really comfortable. My uniform was a kilt and knee socks and a golf shirt. Honestly, I've never worn anything as comfortable as that kilt. It's not really much of an equalizer nor does it prevent sexualization (we wore those kilts Reeaaally short haha) but I think Comedian is right on with his point about the air of studiousness that a uniform provides. I think it's just a means of enforcing the idea that school is a place where everyone has a task to perform and that there is a standard of professionalism to be upheld and pride to be taken in what you accomplish there. We had fairly strict rules about the uniform, mostly surrounding the tucking in of the shirts haha, but they were specific about the type of shoes you wore and also how you wore it- for example, guys were not allowed to have their pants down around their knees like you often see and there was a certain number of buttons that had to be done up on the girls shirts to avoid cleavage. It's also a sign of respect towards the faculty. They put on nice clothes and ties and whatnot because they are in a professional situation, why should the students not show respect for the teacher and the situation as well?

[TheFifthElement]

It's also a sign of respect towards the faculty.
If you replaced the word 'respect' with 'obedience', I'd say you'd have got it about right.

Forgive my incredulity Classic. None of the schools I went to had a uniform policy. There was a generally studious and respectful atmosphere. I'd say about 85-90% of the kids in my schools generally got their heads down and got on with their work, the rest were split between those that struggled and those that just didn't want to be there. Putting them into a uniform wouldn't have addressed or improved those things though it would have given them one more thing to get into trouble over.

If you want to show respect to the faculty work hard and do your best, be attentive in class, do your homework on time. That was how we showed respect to the teachers and the school. Respect is about action and behaviour not image. The sooner we get away from this idea that creating the illusion of respect and professionalism is enough the better.

As far as I see it uniforms in school are at best about creating a professional image and at worst a visual demonstration of obedience. It is all very well to say it 'does no harm', but I think we ought to really be asking the question 'does it do any good'? I can think of no good practical application for them in school which is not the case when considering uniforms in employment situations. Perhaps I am missing something? If so, please someone tell me what it is.

[Helga]

in my sons playschool there are uniforms, both for the kids and the teacher. he is is a school with a different curriculum than others so it's the only one in iceland that has a uniform (at least to my knowledge) except one school for kids from 6-15. I like it, they are at a good price, they are comfortable for kids to play in and like the school says 'we are all playing for the same team' . if the parents of some kids can't afford the uniform the teacher has a few extra to let the child wear while he/she is in school. the schools logo is on it and it shows a girl and a boy with a small flower between them to show equal rights and and needs for each gender.

I am all for it because I know of to many incidents where kids teased because of their clothes and what kids want to wear these days is way way more expensive than the uniform. I remember a girl who was teased a lot because her mom bought her clothes in a shop that wasn't as cool and expensive as the 'cool' kids clothes. my sons niece isn't an a equal part in her soccer team because she hasn't the right Adidas pants, the don't pass the ball to her and try and push her out of the game. this is not right and there are so many incidents like that all because of the clothes kids wear to school each day.

[papayahed]

As far as I see it uniforms in school are at best about creating a professional image and at worst a visual demonstration of obedience. It is all very well to say it 'does no harm', but I think we ought to really be asking the question 'does it do any good'? I can think of no good practical application for them in school which is not the case when considering uniforms in employment situations. Perhaps I am missing something? If so, please someone tell me what it is.


Seriously, what's wrong with a visual demonstration of obedience? You make it sound like the kids are being "broken" by putting them in uniforms.

There are several good practical reasons for them in school:
1) Cheaper, I had to purchase 2 skirts, ~10 blouses, 2 pairs of shoes for four years of school. I could have made it with one skirt but I took out some threads and the skirt became too short.
2) Easier to enforce a dress code.
3) Easier to decide what to wear each morning.
4) Easier to get students to submit to subcutaneous implants to track their thoughts and movement.

[TheFifthElement]

Seriously, what's wrong with a visual demonstration of obedience?
What's right with it?


There are several good practical reasons for them in school:
1) Cheaper, I had to purchase 2 skirts, ~10 blouses, 2 pairs of shoes for four years of school. I could have made it with one skirt but I took out some threads and the skirt became too short.
it's not necessarily cheaper. I commented on this earlier. See post 8.


2) Easier to enforce a dress code.
why is this 'practical'?


3) Easier to decide what to wear each morning.
why is this 'good'?

4) Easier to get students to submit to subcutaneous implants to track their thoughts and movement.
:lol: yes. Very practical.


You make it sound like the kids are being "broken" by putting them in uniforms.
No, that wasn't my point. I'm not concerned about individuality here. What I'm more concerned about is that a decision is taken that school uniforms are somehow 'necessary'. This is a positive decision around which school have a policy and which is enforced. This takes time and diverts resource and attention. Kids who are otherwise good students get into trouble because their shirt's come untucked. In some areas uniform policies are enforced without recourse to logic or sense, see post 8 again for an example of this. My question is, if it doesn't make you a better student what is it really there for? It's not there for safety purposes. It doesn't aid learning. It doesn't stop bullying or stop everyone from telling who the poor or neglected kids are and it doesn't prevent sexualisation. People have proven themselves perfectly capable of being good, dedicated, respectful students without needing a uniform. So why have it?

[applepie]

4) Easier to get students to submit to subcutaneous implants to track their thoughts and movement.

:smilielol5: I like this one. Now if only it were true, maybe I would worry less about my kids when they're teens ;)

[Emil Miller]

I wore school uniform as it's pretty much de rig. in England but it didn't bother me at all. My one refraction was to wear gaudily patterned ties when I got into the 6th form. I don't think school uniform makes a great deal of difference to a person's education except, perhaps, to teach children that the world doesn't revolve exclusively around them. However, even in enforced uniformity, some childrern will be smarter than others. Like most of the school I wasn't particularly tidy but there was one kid called Waldemeyer who looked amazingly suave and sophisticated in his blazer and flannels: a sort of cross between Anton Walbrook and Cary grant. He made even the teachers look scruffy.

[Katy North]

I think the argument of is it cheaper or not depends on whether your child is materialistic or not. It sounds like these uniforms aren't cheap as opposed to shopping at K-Mart, but definitely cheaper than a trip to Abercrombie and Fitch at the Mall...

[BienvenuJDC]

I would have to agree with papayahed completely here.



This is a positive decision around which school have a policy and which is enforced. This takes time and diverts resource and attention. Kids who are otherwise good students get into trouble because their shirt's come untucked. In some areas uniform policies are enforced without recourse to logic or sense, see post 8 again for an example of this.

This has nothing to do with Uniform Dress Code, and everything to do with HOW it is enforced. Attention could also likely be diverted and time taken to enforce non-uniform dress codes to the same ridiculous standards if an administration so chose to. Just because someone could go overboard in the implementation of the code, does not make the dress code bad.



My question is, if it doesn't make you a better student what is it really there for? It's not there for safety purposes. It doesn't aid learning. It doesn't stop bullying or stop everyone from telling who the poor or neglected kids are and it doesn't prevent sexualisation. People have proven themselves perfectly capable of being good, dedicated, respectful students without needing a uniform. So why have it?

I don't think that it has been documented that school uniforms do not at least AID in a better learning environment. There are those who have thrown around their own ideas about it. But just because someone SAYS that uniforms don't aid in improving the learning environment, it does not make it so.

According to my own opinion, I feel that uniforms WOULD make better students (even if it is just slightly). I feel that it would create less distraction and sexualization (again, even if just slightly).

I checked a couple of studies, and the results seem to indicate that there is no major effect, but maybe a slight improvement. However, social aspects are very difficult to measure. The studies only seemed to measure test scores, absenteeism, etc. These aspects are much more greatly effect by other influences, such as parental involvement and even cultural aspects. To say that there is NO GOOD from uniform policies is saying too much.

[Nietzsche]

I don't care much for anything which suppresses the individual. Though, I can't say there are no benefits from uniforms, because there are, but i'm rather glad I didn't have to wear one. A middle ground in my opinion would be a set of several outfits that you can choose from.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't care much for anything which suppresses the individual. Though, I can't say there are no benefits from uniforms, because there are, but i'm rather glad I didn't have to wear one. A middle ground in my opinion would be a set of several outfits that you can choose from.

A very reasonable stance...thank you for such an honest consideration...
:iagree:

[AmericanEagle]

A middle ground in my opinion would be a set of several outfits that you can choose from.

There are several outfits in the uniform that you can choose from. Golf shirt (long sleeve or short sleeve), dress shirt (long sleeve or short sleeve), sweater, vest, sweatshirt, etc.

My only complaint is that the uniforms are expensive. My school eliminated white golf shirts, probably because it didn't want students to buy them from cheaper places like Old Navy.

[The Atheist]

And I think serious cat would approve of them (waves to Serious cat) because they would help create a more studious atmosphere in general (but by no means create one).

It's so hard to be sure. It should be relatively easy to explore by looking at the pass rate of similar socio-economically grouped schools with different uniform codes, but it doesn't quite work like that.

You probably couldn't do it here or in UK, because uniforms are the norm and only the "liberal" schools have no uniform rules and the liberalism tends to contain a disdain for pass marks as well.

I can report that the two schools voted as the worst in Auckland were two without uniforms. They both changed management and introduced uniforms and now rate among the best. One of them rated #1 in the country. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence because the uniforms came as part of massive changes in culture and teaching methods which are a lot more likely to matter.


At my school it was whipping for a first offence, followed by an escalation of punishments for subsequent transgressions that culminated in the public crucifixion of incorrigible non-tuckers-in-of-shirts.

Those Catholic schools are hell on that, eh? Every single one I've been in has a bloke nailed to the wall without a uniform.


I think the argument of is it cheaper or not depends on whether your child is materialistic or not. It sounds like these uniforms aren't cheap as opposed to shopping at K-Mart, but definitely cheaper than a trip to Abercrombie and Fitch at the Mall...

It also depends on the uniform.

Primary school uniforms can vary between $50 a set at a lower decile school - polo shirt and tracksuit pants - to $200 at a higher decile one.

I'd be a lot more in favour of uniforms if schools tried to minimise the cost by using cheaper, but effective, options.

[1n50mn14]

Ditto EVERYTHING TheFifthElement said. Once again, you have put into words how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could.

[BienvenuJDC]

because it didn't want students to buy them from cheaper places like Old Navy.

Does.........AmericanEagle...carry them?

[AmericanEagle]

Does.........AmericanEagle...carry them?

Yes, American Eagle carries them, but most of their golf shirts have an eagle logo on them, so you can't really pass them off as a school uniform.

[Hurricane]

I attended a middle/high school with a dress code (and attend a college with uniforms..), and honestly it was pretty nice. My dress code dictated no jeans, sweatpants, large logos, overly short skirts, etc. Everybody looked presentable and relatively professional. Though obviously there still were cliques and different groups, but clothes weren't as much of an issue. My school may have been unusual, but people were divided more into drinkers/non-drinkers than stuff based off of outward appearance. Uniforms would have probably made it even better. Dress codes/uniforms for all wouldn't mean that students would just sit around holding hands, but it makes one less point of contention.


As far as I see it uniforms in school are at best about creating a professional image and at worst a visual demonstration of obedience. It is all very well to say it 'does no harm', but I think we ought to really be asking the question 'does it do any good'? I can think of no good practical application for them in school which is not the case when considering uniforms in employment situations. Perhaps I am missing something? If so, please someone tell me what it is.

What's wrong with a "visual demonstration of obedience"? Even showing up at school is in some ways a demonstration of obedience. The students have to obey and respect the teacher, it's the only way school works. When they get real jobs, a lot of students are going to have to abide by a dress code (shirt &tie/suit/whatever) and I think that good comes from getting people used to that.

[kilted exile]

My school had a uniform, this was no bad thing. I went to a school in a pretty bad area and uniform was very useful. It prevented fights over wearing of one football teams top as opposed to another one (anyone with knowledge of glasgow will understand this), cut down on gang colours etc. also there is the effect on people from other schools coming in looking for fights gets reduced because they are more easily spotted (in a high school of 2500 people not every student can be known by every teacher).

[Virgil]

I attended a middle/high school with a dress code (and attend a college with uniforms..), and honestly it was pretty nice. My dress code dictated no jeans, sweatpants, large logos, overly short skirts, etc. Everybody looked presentable and relatively professional. Though obviously there still were cliques and different groups, but clothes weren't as much of an issue. My school may have been unusual, but people were divided more into drinkers/non-drinkers than stuff based off of outward appearance. Uniforms would have probably made it even better. Dress codes/uniforms for all wouldn't mean that students would just sit around holding hands, but it makes one less point of contention.



What's wrong with a "visual demonstration of obedience"? Even showing up at school is in some ways a demonstration of obedience. The students have to obey and respect the teacher, it's the only way school works. When they get real jobs, a lot of students are going to have to abide by a dress code (shirt &tie/suit/whatever) and I think that good comes from getting people used to that.

Good post Hurricane. I agree with both sections. Yes, if students came in dressed professionally, I wouldn't be so pro school uniforms. Obedience is not the right word. The right word is proper socialization. I can tell you this, if you come into an interview to me with without proper attire, visible tattoos, piercings, or expressing yourself with street gutter language, I can guarentee you will not get hired by me. One is free to be any counter-cultural radical you want to be, but I'm free not to hire anyone that gives me vibes of potential problems. I really don't care how it inhibits anyone's individuality. A professional dresses professionally.

[Paulclem]

I have to agree Virgil. The posts about individuality etc miss the point. Individuality is fine in the right place and time. It is important for to have a proper perspective.

The funny thing I noticed about kids when I was one and nowadays is that they don't really express that much individuality. I think they're more "dress tribal" - they dress like their mates etc.

I used to hang about with punks at one time, and they would cluster together in the same pubs, thus subverting their own individuality for the tribe identity. They dressed to stand out, but went to places where they wouldn't.

At least with a uniform you also take the tribe gang thing away too.

[Virgil]

Thanks Paul. It amazes me how every individual punk dreses exactly the same. :lol: :lol:

Hey I was a teenager too. I know kids want to be hip. But dressing in a shirt and tie to work or school doesn't limit one's individuality. One's individuality is not based on what one wears or smokes, but on one's personality and thoughts and creativity.

You see these guys here:

http://www.audacity.org/images/features/A-photo-Apollo-11/Apollo-11-flight-crew.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/p111.jpg

These are the engineers at mission control that managed and worked the Apollo 11 expedition to the moon. These are some of the most creative people ever to take up a slide rule and lay out a design. I don't think that shirt and tie and horned rimmed glasses had any limitations on their individuality. I would have given my right arm to have worked on that.

[*Classic*Charm*]

My question is, if it doesn't make you a better student what is it really there for?

Do you have evidence that it doesn't make for better students? I'm sure studies have been done. Speaking from my own experience, there were three high schools in my town, only mine required a uniform, and it was very well known that universities would accept a 75 from a student from my school when it required an 80 of students from the others. I'm not saying that this is directly because we had a uniform, but perhaps it has to do with the environment created in the school? Everyone knew that the other two high schools were jokes compared to mine.

[BienvenuJDC]

Do you have evidence that it doesn't make for better students? I'm sure studies have been done. Speaking from my own experience, there were three high schools in my town, only mine required a uniform, and it was very well known that universities would accept a 75 from a student from my school when it required an 80 of students from the others. I'm not saying that this is directly because we had a uniform, but perhaps it has to do with the environment created in the school? Everyone knew that the other two high schools were jokes compared to mine.

I totally agree with you.

[virginiawang]

Hi Virgil, I believe you are right in a sense, and you can fit into an elite group or a work without difficulty.
I am far different from the people you expect who reach the standard you described above, because I never like to dress myself professionally. The two pictures you chose and your description about them had scared me off already.
I do not think I had any difficulty wearing a uniform in my teens, but I always quit school for a day or two when I got into one of those queer moods that detered me from attending school.

[Nikhar]

I was just a bit taken aback to know that all schools did NOT have a uniform there. I mean, here in India, I think there are very few schools without uniforms. (By schools, I mean schools good enough to impose a particular uniform on students).

Well, uniform, I think are outstanding means to display oneness, if you know what I mean. It also gives me pride when someone looks at my uniform and says, 'Hey, he belongs to Emerald Heights! And it's a wonderful school!'

Also, I really liked the point Niamh made. Indeed, students wouldn't be bullied just because they lack 'fashion sense'. I hadnt ever thought about it that way.

Edit:- I just read FifthElement's post questioning its usefulness. Here's my take on it. Uniform allows me to instantly connect to my school.

Also, indirectly, it infuses in you a sense of discipline. In our school, its not just about wearing a uniform...its about wearing it in the right manner.

[AuntShecky]

To repeat what I said in your blog, the late, great George Carlin was dead set against school uniforms. He said something to the effect that "Isn't it enough that the schools want all the kids to THINK alike -- they want them all to LOOK alike too?"

I do agree that teenagers are obsessed with clothes. When they're not making fun of somebody for wearing something outside the realm of what's fashionable, they're using clothing as a springboard to violence, such as "gang colors." So uniforms could be a safeguard against the latter. Despite that:

I think the uniform issue -- as well as locker searches, metal detectors, sweeps for contraband (i.e., aspirin, Midol, cough drops) is a symptom of one of the things wrong with our educational system.

First of all, there is a deep-seated distrust of students, manifested by the fact that many of our public schools are run as if they were medium-security prisons. No wonder kids don't want to be there, why the drop-out rate is so high! It seems to me whenever any kind of school reform is undertaken, the needs and wishes of students -- the reason d'etre for the existence of public schools to begin with --are considered last. The hierarchy goes like this:
1. State Education Dept.
2. Local School Board
3. Administrators
4. Teachers' unions
5. Taxpayers
6. Parents
and dead last -- 7. students

When you look at the entities in the hierarchy of 1 through 4 above, the elements which are considered important to that group widely differ. As a result, very few public school systems have the priorities right. They place too much emphasis on non-educational issue such as thinking up and reinforcing rules, spending/not spending money, so-called "standard" and assessments, i.e., tests. You know as well as I do that damn few standardized tests measure anything useful beyond certain prescribed criteria that have little or nothing to do with real knowledge.

And to come back to the uniform issue, it would be great if the schools would place more importance on what's inside a kid's head rather than what kind of shirt he or she is wearing.

Finally, remember all the garbage about "self-esteem" from a few years back? Yeah, make a 14-year-old girl wear a uniform with the skirt hem as long as a burqa. That's really gonna boost her "self-esteem!"

[kiki1982]

I find school uniforms the most disgusting things in the world.

Firstly they are mostly bad quality clothing that is over-priced and doesn't last a season.

Secondly, the argument that it prevents class/financial differences showing is total crap. If they do not wear a T-shirt of Lacoste, then they wear golden earrings. If they are not permitted to wear any jewellery (surely they cannot actually forbid earrings?), they will cut their hair every week and so show the difference in financial capacity that way. Not to speak about pens, pen bags, school bags and other thins the school cannot regulate. Class differences are there and we should face tem, there is nothing else to be done. Outside the school, puils are no longer equal, despite wearing the same stuff. At any rate, will teachers actually discriminate if they see that one is wearing Lacoste and other isn't? I would hope not. .

Thirdly, any (English) uniform I have seen is the most unflattering clothing ever! I wouldn't be seen dead in it. For teenagers who are already insecure about their figure, putting on such preposterous trousers that make your bum look huge, is not going to have a good effect.

Forthy, a school can regulate what its pupils wear. I went to a school where the uniform had been abolished and we were allowed to wear anything, povided that is was not without sleeves (in an attempt to have no too sexy clothing, although we were in a girls only school :rolleyes:), not too extravagant, not too short (10cm above the knee was about the line, although some got away with more :D), it did not look untidy (dreadlocks were objected to, but I don't think anyone ever had really to get rid of them, although there were very few in my school of about 1000 pupils). Sometimes you could get around the rules by wearing a knitted jumper with big wholesin it and a top without sleeves under it. Then I was wearing sleeves. It did not say in the rules that there were no holes allowed :D.

Fifthly, if students eventually are allowed out without wearing that preposterous ensemble that does not suit them, they go out in tracksuits and the like. Why? Because, surely, it is not a priority to have nice looking clothes as they do not have to go to school in them.

It also teaches pupils very little about the appropriate way of clothing in a professional environment, because they have never had to think about it. Unless they go and work somewhere with a uniform, they do not know the difference between a tiny mini-skirt with tank-top and a proper suit and which occasion suits what.

Needless to say, I am anti-uniform. :alien:

[The Comedian]

I think the uniform issue -- as well as locker searches, metal detectors, sweeps for contraband (i.e., aspirin, Midol, cough drops) is a symptom of one of the things wrong with our educational system.

First of all, there is a deep-seated distrust of students, manifested by the fact that many of our public schools are run as if they were medium-security prisons.

I think that uniforms and all the searches that you list here are different sorts of issues: the searches, detectors, et al. . .communicate, as you note, suspicion of covert activities, that the students are hiding something. Uniforms aren't that way: you're either wearing it or you're not. And if you're not (or have manipulated it in some way), then go home, take a 0 for the day. And come back when you're ready.

Lesson #1 learned: if you want to break the rules for something as small and petty as showing a little more leg, then you deserve to suffer the consequences when they're small and, relatively, harmless. Lesson #2 learned: sometimes you have to follow the rules, even if you don't like them. Honestly, the whining about I hear about having to wear uniforms reminds me of something my 5-year old said this morning: "But daddy, I really, really, really want cake for breakfast! Cake is so yummy!" That may be so, and when she's and adult she can eat cake for breakfast if she wants, but today, it's wheat toast and a banana.

I think, Auntie, that your concerns about school searches and similar paranoia, established after the Columbine shootings (which to me, did more than any political policy to change the structure and tenor of US education) are a truly severe problem. And the US needs to lighten up (a lot) on the prison element of school.

As a side note, I'm not all crazy about uniforms myself. I just posted the question because a personal observation got me thinking about the connection between dress standards and education.

Here it is: In the small town in which I live, there are two schools, the larger public school, and the smaller Catholic school. The Catholic school doesn't require uniforms, but the dress code there is MUCH more stringent and enforced than the public school. And, the education and overall moral and social preparedness of the students at the Catholic school is leaps and bounds beyond that of the public school system. (And this Catholic school is light on the Catholic, really light on the Catholic, non-believers can opt-out of Mass, do independent projects during religious class. . .).

Anyway, my kid is in the public school where I see the most slovenly dressed students using foul, inarticulate language and rude, rough behavior. Now, I'm no fool: I know there are a lot of socio-economic issues at work here too that far outplay role of strict dress code. But, I wondered, surely the dress code is doing something, right?

Maybe it's doing nothing, but it doesn't seem that way. At the very least, it seems to establish a more consistent, studious air about the place. . .a respectability that affect a lot of things indirectly. I've never claimed that dress codes or uniforms are problem solvers; in truth the large issues that you rightly bring up here cannot be solved by one major change, but by many, many small adjustments to mood, structure, curriculum, and (ultimately) the social values of the citizenry.

[Heathcliff]

1. School uniforms are often very expensive. Certainly more expensive than normal everyday clothes which are subject to considerably more open market forces. A basic school blazer in UK costs £20. I can’t recall ever having the need to spend that much money on one item of clothing for either of my kids. In fact I could probably get them 4 decent quality jumpers for the same amount of money.

Haha. Blazer is like $150 here. :nonod:

I like uniforms because they are actually a source of income for the school, a small amount of the profit actually goes to them. It also gives them a reason to fundraise on gold-coin donation casual days. Say you get a dollar from over a thousand kids at a school, it does add up and there is little work on the schools behalf. They can use that to buy so many more things.

That, and my PE shorts are the most comfortable things I own.

And still, you can be descriminated against for your uniform. I mean, I've had numerous complaints from other students about my dress being too long, that being the correct length.

Unless it is properly policed by the school, then it defeats the purpose. Our school is pretty strict, but there are things that they let pass. They are yet to send a thousand girls home for having short dresses.

[papayahed]

Anyway, my kid is in the public school where I see the most slovenly dressed students using foul, inarticulate language and rude, rough behavior. Now, I'm no fool: I know there are a lot of socio-economic issues at work here too that far outplay role of strict dress code. But, I wondered, surely the dress code is doing something, right?

Maybe it's doing nothing, but it doesn't seem that way. At the very least, it seems to establish a more consistent, studious air about the place. . .a respectability that affect a lot of things indirectly. I've never claimed that dress codes or uniforms are problem solvers; in truth the large issues that you rightly bring up here cannot be solved by one major change, but by many, many small adjustments to mood, structure, curriculum, and (ultimately) the social values of the citizenry.

I think it also has to do with discipline. When parents are paying to send you somewhere they tend to not be happy when you get expelled. We pushed the boundries but we knew how far we could push until the hammer was dropped and (and by pushing boundries I mean not having out blouses tucked in and our socks slouched down).

[The Comedian]

I think it also has to do with discipline. When parents are paying to send you somewhere they tend to not be happy when you get expelled. We pushed the boundries but we knew how far we could push until the hammer was dropped and (and by pushing boundries I mean not having out blouses tucked in and our socks slouched down).

Oh yes, I agree. Still, as Catholic schools go, this one is cheap -- really cheap; most in town but save the poorest could afford the tuition outright, and the school has a strong enough endowment to "sponsor" kids from families that can't pay the tuition. However, you bring up my point that the enforcement of the dress code is a part of how discipline and respect is crated, like a section in a quilt.

EDIT: your new avatar is about as awesome as I've seen here. It make me want to burst out with "there's one; set for stun", every time I see it.

[Heathcliff]

...The hierarchy goes like this:
1. State Education Dept.
2. Local School Board
3. Administrators
4. Teachers' unions
5. Taxpayers
6. Parents
and dead last -- 7. students
That's how it goes? Not for us when it comes to uniforms.
1. Education Dept. of Australia
2. " " of the State.
3. Catholic Education Department
4. Board of Catholic Education at our school
5. Chaplain
6. Principal
7. Deputy Pricipals
8. Student body, represented by the school captians
9. Year Level Coordinators
10. The janitors
11. Parents.
Yea, parents don't score out too well around here.

[AuntShecky]

Confidential to TheComedian: Way "back in the day" the nuns used to get the tape measure out and measure the hems of uniform skirts to determine whether they weren't too many inches up from the floor. The good sisters spent time on this that might have been more productively spent on The Hundred Years War or differential equations.

And Heathcliff, you're absolutely right about parents being deligated to the penultimate bottom layer of the totem pole. Teachers (and especially schools top-heavy with over-paid administrators) give lip service to "welcoming input from parents." In most cases,however, when it comes time to "implement" --a favorite word of educationists -- the parents' suggestions, the first four levels of the hierarchy push their own agenda instead.

[JuniperWoolf]

*shrug* When I was in highschool, I used to wish that we had uniforms. I hated having to focus on finding something cool looking to wear at seven in the morning when I was still half-asleep. I don't think that we'd have to worry about kids "losing their individuality" or whatever, like a lot of people said, kids would still form cliques; this means that they're still defining themselves as something.

[papayahed]

*shrug* When I was in highschool, I used to wish that we had uniforms. I hated having to focus on finding something cool looking to wear at seven in the morning when I was still half-asleep. I don't think that we'd have to worry about kids "losing their individuality" or whatever, like a lot of people said, kids would still form cliques; this means that they're still defining themselves as something.

I have to say it was nice. My biggest decision was what color socks and (if) sweater I wanted to wear. Even that wasn't much of a decision as my choices were gray, blue, black, white.

[Nax]

Having lived in both Canada and Australia, in Canada I went to a public school and had to wear casual clothes and in Australia I was forced to go to a private catholic school and wear a uniform.

Heres my findings.

1) Uniforms reduce bullying : Dont know about you, but I cant remember when the last time I was picked on for a piece of clothing, probably about grade 5. Generally people will just single someone out for the way they act, or speak, or who they hang out with rather then what they wear. It doesnt really cut back on bullying at all, just makes the bullies come up with even more rediculous reasons to single u out.

2) Uniforms make it easier to pick what to wear: Yes...every...single...day. The exact same outfit, shoes. There has never been an experience so creatively stifling in my life. There is something incredibly creepy about sitting in a school assembly, and seeing every single person wearing the same thing, with the same shoes, and the exact same hair spare for one or two "rebels". Its not natural, you feel like another number, and at the end of the day its more about control and oppression then it is about making life easier.

I think uniforms should be abolished, even when we get older and submit to a life of survitude and semi-concious interactions we are permited to wear what we like, though some companies do have uniforms, they are generally retail. As if kids in school dont have enough trouble trying to find their personal identity and style without being forced to look the exact same as everyone else. Its inhuman. I hate them

[Paulclem]

Inhuman is such a strong word for a dress code. There are far stricter regimes in the world where you might criticise strongly for their dress codes, but inhuman - too strong.

You said yourself that bullying about clothes is reduced, but that clothing is very important to young people. At least that important aspect of individuality is protected.

I think that uniforms encourage a search for personal identity. Being compelled to wear the same thing makes the wearer wish to be more individual. But then teen individuality is often about identity within an individual tribe rather than real individuality.

Later clothes may become...just another thing. This whole I'm an individual thing - my clothes make a statement about who I am - is really smoke and mirrors. People copy others, though they don't like to admit it. We are social animals and gravitate towards people like ourselves - clothes - music - whatever, but behind these things lie industry and money. A true individual would find it hard to fit into a social group.

[Heathcliff]

1) Uniforms reduce bullying : Dont know about you, but I cant remember when the last time I was picked on for a piece of clothing, probably about grade 5. Generally people will just single someone out for the way they act, or speak, or who they hang out with rather then what they wear. It doesnt really cut back on bullying at all, just makes the bullies come up with even more rediculous reasons to single u out.
Haha. We'd get picked on, despite the uniform. It is surprisingly complicated to wear it correctly and 'correctly' at the same time.

[MarkBastable]

Actually. we got picked on because of the uniform - not within school, but by the kids from every other school nearby.

[Heathcliff]

And Heathcliff, you're absolutely right about parents being deligated to the penultimate bottom layer of the totem pole. Teachers (and especially schools top-heavy with over-paid administrators) give lip service to "welcoming input from parents." In most cases,however, when it comes time to "implement" --a favorite word of educationists -- the parents' suggestions, the first four levels of the hierarchy push their own agenda instead.
I know. Most of the time, if the school has a problem, we'll get three lunchtimes and an afterschool before they go to the parents with a problem.
They have student services, who are able to organise meetings with them, however they don't even know I exist. Like, that many of my friends are sent there all the time, social services comes looking for them, at random. They saod they'd come to everyone and speaek to every student. They haven't spoken to me. I'm ironically hurt, I need to go and see social services about it. :cryin: :lol:
Parents wouldn't have a clue. They should. Still, we have a parents comittee, only out of a large school only a few people show up. Half the time, its like they don't even care. My parents do, they are constantly hassling the school.
The school only talks to them if it is bothering their life. We come to parent teacher interviews, teachers don't even want to see me. They say there aren't any problems so they don't want to see us.
Our school is still pretty good though.


Actually. we got picked on because of the uniform - not within school, but by the kids from every other school nearby.
Our school doesn't get picked on. Overall, we out-number the surrounding schools, so they won't mess with us.
We're a private school so when they bother us we make ourself superior...
Actually, we're pretty decent. We won't fight unless we have to.

[blazeofglory]

Dress codes are common here. I have seen chicks in their flashy dresses, at times they are so much exposed to the extent man starts salivating. They are dressed up but the hidden desire is to expose all. The dress becomes an undesired mask. Now people here stick to certain dress codes except for Friday. Friday becomes the day that unfurls what chicks are below their dresses.

[kiki1982]

This whole I'm an individual thing - my clothes make a statement about who I am - is really smoke and mirrors. People copy others, though they don't like to admit it. We are social animals and gravitate towards people like ourselves - clothes - music - whatever, but behind these things lie industry and money. A true individual would find it hard to fit into a social group.

Just one question:

What makes a teenager/school-going child different from an adult? Why is it that the adult (unless he needs to be recognised as policeman, shop-assistant, fireman, railway worker etc) is allowed his own clothing while the child/teenager is forced to walk around in sometimes the most ridiculous unfitting uniform? Surely every child goes to school these days. We do not need to recognise them for it. So why have to wear a uniform? It does not serve any purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for shorts in school, or over-sexy stuff. But really, I do not see the need for any uniform whatsoever, unless it serves a clear purpose, which one in school clearly does not.

[Paulclem]

Just one question:

What makes a teenager/school-going child different from an adult? Why is it that the adult (unless he needs to be recognised as policeman, shop-assistant, fireman, railway worker etc) is allowed his own clothing while the child/teenager is forced to walk around in sometimes the most ridiculous unfitting uniform? Surely every child goes to school these days. We do not need to recognise them for it. So why have to wear a uniform? It does not serve any purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for shorts in school, or over-sexy stuff. But really, I do not see the need for any uniform whatsoever, unless it serves a clear purpose, which one in school clearly does not.

Because, as I said in the post above, it helps kids by taking the pressure off them. As Nax said, clothes are important to young people in a way they are not to older people. It serves a clear purpose in this, and there is some evidence that it helps behaviour - schools here in England that have been turned around have had - but only as one aspect of that process - uniforms imposed.

Kids are at school for quite a short time, and then will have all their lives to express themselves. I still think kids need guidance even if they don't like it, and in this issue adults setting the agenda are not clouded by the small concerns kids have about uniforms.

[kiki1982]

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be a dress-code. People do not go to work in a track-suit so they should also not go to school in them. But I don't see how a dreary uniform would benefit them at all.

Stuffing teenagers all in the same suit will not automatically condition them to express themselves better. It is the parents, the school etc who need to take care of that. If one is saddled with bad parents, one gets stuck with clothing. And outside the school it can still become an issue of expression. So, the argument, to me, does not hold up. School is not 24 hours a day.

That said though, I don't mean to say that teenagers/children should be allowed to walk about anyhow they like. They should learn from the start that there are certain conventions, because that is life. Life is not made up of freedom, but of duty. In that, they should dress a certain way that is decent, but I don't agree that they should walk around in the same old thing every day, all of them. Not everyone looks nice in the same colour, not everyone likes the same colour. At any rate, to me, the problem would change place. If it is not their jumper hey express themselves with, it is their pen-bag, their tattoo, their sports shoes, their whatever.

[Paulclem]

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be a dress-code. People do not go to work in a track-suit so they should also not go to school in them. But I don't see how a dreary uniform would benefit them at all.

Stuffing teenagers all in the same suit will not automatically condition them to express themselves better. It is the parents, the school etc who need to take care of that. If one is saddled with bad parents, one gets stuck with clothing. And outside the school it can still become an issue of expression. So, the argument, to me, does not hold up. School is not 24 hours a day.

That said though, I don't mean to say that teenagers/children should be allowed to walk about anyhow they like. They should learn from the start that there are certain conventions, because that is life. Life is not made up of freedom, but of duty. In that, they should dress a certain way that is decent, but I don't agree that they should walk around in the same old thing every day, all of them. Not everyone looks nice in the same colour, not everyone likes the same colour. At any rate, to me, the problem would change place. If it is not their jumper hey express themselves with, it is their pen-bag, their tattoo, their sports shoes, their whatever.

I agree that uniforms in themselves do nothing much for behaviour - except take away the clothes bully thing. It has to be the whole package of improvement.

Bad parents are bad for everyone - particularly for their own kids, but you can't run a dress code on what a minority of parents may or may not do.

As for learning appropriate dress codes - the simplest thing is a uniform. Of course it doesn't suit everyone, but that's not it's purpose. Also in the UK - can't speak for other countries - the school year is 38 weeks out of 52, and only 7-8 hours out of the day at that. That's lots of time to get individual with the responsibility of dressing appropriately for some of the time.

Don't you think aged people like myself, and younger people didn't have to wear uniforms and disliked them? We did. Some of us went on to be punks, rockers, new romantics etc - (I'm showing my age now :D) - as soon as we got out of school. But what happens - you just forget about it when you leave and wear what you want. Those fabled school days fade into the mists of time and you realise that although you were a bit irritated by them at the time, it just served a short term purpose, and had no effect beyond that.

You're right about the little individual tweaks to appearance - the hair, the pens whatever. It also happened in rugby teams I played in - some players tucked in their collar to look bulkier in the shoulders, some had their socks down. Human nature - but I don't see it as an argument against uniforms.

I don't like the school uniforms as an item myself. My ex-head that I used to work for used to wear the school uniform as well as the kids. A ghastly Green, but if I was the Head on £100,000 or so smackers a year, then bring it on. I'd definately make the kids wear it as well, and not just because I felt I had to. :D

[Heathcliff]

Dress codes pretty much apply anywhere anyway.
Like showing up to a job interview in the city, you're not going to go wearing an empty sack of potatoes.
Our school says they reserve the right to decide if we're dressed properly even on casual days.
Still, pretty much all of the girls in our school have their skirts too short, the school can't throw them all out though.
What amazes me is that their parents let them leave the house in some of their ridiculous getups, and how they can survive having to catch a train at the Station.

[Nax]

Oh what, now ur gonna start bashing on wearing potato sacks? Jeez strict much.

I understand the thought behind it, but I dont believe it really works to that effect. Alot of the time it doesnt stop it at all, like the poorer kids cant afford the flashy shoes and dress pants at my school, so they are forced to buy cheaper crapper immitations and are picked on (just like with casuals)

Its trying to cover up a symptom rather then address the disease persay.

I am backing Kiki, Can you imagine the uproar in almost every facet of society if a government imposed a uniform code for everyone, all day, till you got home? Regardless if you were at work or anywhere else you still had to wear it? It would be rediculous. Why is it ok just because they are at school? I dont think that a service which is being paid for by the family should have any say at all in how a child dresses, or wears their hair, or what shoes they have on, as long as it applies to the normal standards of society.

[papayahed]

Oh my, this is starting to remind me of my place of work. We have a very specific dress code for our employees and for any contractors working onsite. One of the regulations is that anyone working in the unit must be clean shaven. Contractors are always given a copy of our regulations before they show up. It's amazing the guys that still show up with full beards and then whine and try to talk their way out of it when I hand them a cheap razor. The rules aren't going to change either you choose to follow or you don't work at the site. The point is that I have enough problem with the few contractors and employees that I have in comparison to the hundreds of whiney, angsty kids trying to push boundries in any one school. It's a wonder schools haven't gone to uniforms a lot sooner.

[Virgil]

We have long done away with any formal dress code at my work, and most people don't abuse it. Supposedly you are to dress business casual, but some people do look shabby.

[MarkBastable]

We have a very specific dress code for our employees and for any contractors working onsite. One of the regulations is that anyone working in the unit must be clean shaven.

Just as a matter of interest, does the work involve anything that can only be properly done without facial hair?

[papayahed]

Just as a matter of interest, does the work involve anything that can only be properly done without facial hair?

Nooo, the work has nothing to do with facial hair. The location of the work is the issue, there are times when respirators need to be worn.

[Paulclem]

Nooo, the work has nothing to do with facial hair. The location of the work is the issue, there are times when respirators need to be worn.

The military has a no-facefungus policy for the same reason - bio chemical attack.

I have a facefungus policy imposed upon me by my wife. She says it covers the fact that I have no chin. :nonod:

For the anti-uniform posters I think you can see with Virgil and Papyahead's posts that dress codes are normal whether informal or strictly enforced, and certainly for interviews.

If nothing else - though there plenty of pro uniform argments - it conveys this truth. None of us who are working can truly wear what we want.

Kids need to know this as well - and they need to learn how to just get on with it. There's usually no debate, and most adults get on with it because it's for the money. I need money - give me the orange dungarees with the yellow wellingtons and I'll do your job. No problem.:D

[MarkBastable]

For the anti-uniform posters I think you can see with Virgil and Papyahead's posts that dress codes are normal whether informal or strictly enforced, and certainly for interviews.

If nothing else - though there plenty of pro uniform argments - it conveys this truth. None of us who are working can truly wear what we want.


That's not true. And even if it were true, if you call conventions in clothing 'uniform', then you need another word for the kind of identical and prescribed garb that we're talking about here. And lastly, the difference is that if you impose a uniform in order to do a job, the person on whom you are imposing it has the option of telling you to shove your job right up your arse - but a school-child doesn't have that option.

[OrphanPip]

I have a prescribed dress code at work too. I wear navy blue scrubs with a white under shirt every single day. It's even less stimulating than my secondary school uniform haha.

Mark is right though, the difference is that I could always choose to quit my job. I still don't feel strongly for or against uniforms.

Edit: I secretly love my scrubs though, they make me look so sexy and ''medical''.

[1n50mn14]

I can wear whatever the hell I want at work, and it's a professional environment, requiring me to deal with property (horses) worth quite literally millions of dollars. I guess I'll count myself lucky, and not abuse the privilege- I always wear CLEAN blue jeans, clean polo shirts with the barn logo, and neatly laced boots, with my hair up under a hat. My piercings and tattoos aren't a problem, luckily.

I disagree with the school uniform policy- kids know what kids belong to what clique, regardless of clothing. Kids know which kids are less privileged, or are nerdy... regardless of what they wear. I don't see how it is disrespectful to not wear a uniform to school. Lots of teachers don't act professionally or merit the respect that is automatically afforded to them, without them earning it... I really fail to see how uniforms convey respect in any way. We had a simple policy at my school, involving how much skin was shown, what was considered 'disrespectful' in terms of imagery on clothing, and those stupid gangsta' pants that show off a boys ***... and our high school was rated third in Canada for achievement by MacLeans magazine...

*I AM SO INCOHERENT RIGHT NOW! Sorry, guys!*

[Paulclem]

That's not true. And even if it were true, if you call conventions in clothing 'uniform', then you need another word for the kind of identical and prescribed garb that we're talking about here. And lastly, the difference is that if you impose a uniform in order to do a job, the person on whom you are imposing it has the option of telling you to shove your job right up your arse - but a school-child doesn't have that option.

Ok - lots of people can't wear what they want, and lots of people can't tell their bosses to shove their jobs, just like Papayahead's contractors probably can't afford to lose the contract.

You're right - clothing conventions and uniforms are different, but the one is a good training for the other that would be neglected if options to kids were given.

I don't see how it is disrespectful to not wear a uniform to school.
BeccaT

I don't think its just about respect, and I think you're right about kids being able to single out the poor kids, whatever they wear - it's just harder. I'm from a poor family and it could have been harder than it was for me without the uniform.

They began non-uniform days after I left school when my younger siblings were still there. They still talk about how humiliated they felt. My brother is 37 and my sister is 41. Was this anyone else's experience?

[kiki1982]

For the anti-uniform posters I think you can see with Virgil and Papyahead's posts that dress codes are normal whether informal or strictly enforced, and certainly for interviews.

If nothing else - though there plenty of pro uniform argments - it conveys this truth. None of us who are working can truly wear what we want.

Kids need to know this as well - and they need to learn how to just get on with it. There's usually no debate, and most adults get on with it because it's for the money. I need money - give me the orange dungarees with the yellow wellingtons and I'll do your job. No problem.:D

I don't agree with that conclusion, sorry...

What Papayahead addresses, is safety. If your mask does not fit properly because of your beard and you die, it's the company's fault and the insurrace will not pay up because the employee did not comply with the rules. So, the ban on beards and facial hair serves a clear purpose. Of course, people are still going to whine, but that is because they do not understand it is for their own good. Like truck drivers cannot wear rings (not even wedding rings). Why, because, if their ring gets stuck behind something, they rip their finger off (seen myself).

School uniforms though, as opposed to mere dress codes, do not have a clear purpose and that is why I am against them. If they were to serve a clear purpose (like they do for the police or medical staff), I wouldn't have a problem with them, but they do not. They are not healthier, they do not exclude the student from danger, they do not give auhority, a student should not be recognised from afar.

As opposed to dress codes, I said, because pupils should learn not to walk about in track suits. They should learn to dress properly in a professional environment. That said, there is no need to actually stuff them all into the same thing every single day.

Not to mention that some shops actually charge ridiculous prices for a jumper with a mesely logo on it. So, even for the parents in most cases, it would be better to have none of that.

[MarkBastable]

You're right - clothing conventions and uniforms are different, but the one is a good training for the other that would be neglected if options to kids were given.



On the other hand, one might just as easily say that it'll turn kids against that kind of high-handed imposition for life. It did with me. And I know many others who, even in their fifties, will not wear what they are told, simply because that adolescent sense of injustice lingers. Think how much more successful and integrated we might all have been had we seen the conventions of work clothes as an adult domain to be looked forward to, as opposed to an echo of a pointless and arbitrary regime.

[Paulclem]

Uniforms do have a clear purpose - the main one for me is to take away the clothes discrimination. My futher post elaborates a bit on that.


On the other hand, one might just as easily say that it'll turn kids against that kind of high-handed imposition for life. It did with me. And I know many others who, even in their fifties, will not wear what they are told, simply because that adolescent sense of injustice lingers. Think how much more successful and integrated we might all have been had we seen the conventions of work clothes as an adult domain to be looked forward to, as opposed to an echo of a pointless and arbitrary regime.

I can see that. As I've mentioned elsewhere - school is a one stop shop, and as such can't satisfy everyone, or give them what they need. I just think that given this imperfect system - which in my view needs a good overhaul - uniforms are the lesser of the two evils. A school cetainly can't function without discipline, and I think it helps on that front, and it does help the poor kids. My siblings and I used to get uniforms from the local authority, as we weren't well off. They were different to the usual uniforms, but you could blend in.

I'm not for uniforms per se - a different system, smaller teaching units perhaps may not need uniforms. The best option for the situation? Yes in my opinion.

[Heathcliff]

Edit: I secretly love my scrubs though, they make me look so sexy and ''medical''.
Hahahaha!! :hurray: I must pinch your cheeks again... :iagree:

We have a school uniform. It is pretty much ordinary.
We have a blazer that so many people hate wearing during assemblies and to and from school in terms 2, 3 and 4, however us students were the twits who voted it in the the first place, so it apparently is here to stay.
I like it though; it has shoulder-pads. :D :p

[kasie]

One of the reasons for asking children to wear uniform is so that they can be identified outside school; agreed, this has a negative as well as a positive aspect (Big Teacher Is Watching You) but when you are the teacher in charge of a class on a School Trip and you need to herd your thirty or so Little Darlings back to the coach and the Natural History Museum is seething with school parties, believe me, it's useful, nay essential, to be able to spot your own LDs at a glance.

Except....

...the day we took the whole school on a picnic to one of the local parks. Three bus loads of excited five to seven year olds - and guess who was in charge? :yesnod: That's right.... As usual, school uniform was required to be worn, summer uniform was grey shorts and white shirt for boys (no tie required, it was high summer - we used to get that in those days), blue gingham dress for girls, swimsuits and towels in bags if Mum said you could go in the paddling pool (what H&S rules?), packed lunch in bag, all teachers supplied with First Aid kit. Off we went, lovely day had by all, loads of children at the park, we're not the only school making use of the fine weather at the end of term, lots of good social interaction, children from different schools playing together, etc, etc, children happy, teachers happy. Until it's time to go home - must be back by 2.30, gather up children, shepherd them onto the coaches, always a few stragglers but easy to spot them because - they're wearing school uniform! So kasie goes off, rounding up the grey shorts/white shirts and the blue gingham dresses: fine, until a little mite tugs my skirt and says, 'Miss, I'm not in your class'. 'Never mind,' says kasie, 'just get on the coach and we'll find your teacher back at school.' 'But I'm not in your class!' 'Never mind,' and kasie shoos wee girl towards coach, thinking, 'Still two short, must go back with same number as started out'. At coach door, desperate child shrieks, 'Miss, I'm not even in your school!' At which point, kasie realises there are two schools at the park that day with a summer uniform of blue gingham dresses...

So you see, school uniforms don't work.....

(Yes, I did check the coaches to make sure I had not hi-jacked any other children from the school the other side of the park. Yes, I did apologise profusely to traumatised child and returned her to her proper teacher who cackled with hysterical laughter. No, I did not leave any children at the park - not on that occasion, anyway....)

Sorry - this is supposed to be the Serious Discussions thread, isn't it?

[kiki1982]

:lol: Fortunely the child was assertive enough and knew that she wasn't in your school...

Better to remember what the children in your class look like for real, then. Can't be very hard, because, end of term, you have had them for a whole year. The teachers of teenagers have a few more faces to remember, but it isn't very hard, only remembering names is a problem.

@PaulClem:

It might help the 'poor kids' at frst sight, but in the end, there is always something to pick on if they think you're poor: your bike, your jewellery, even your 'charity' uniform of lesser quality apparently, your coat, the pen you write with, the quality of your school bag, the estate you live on, your accent in some cases even... The problem moves itself. Making kids wear uniforms because of that reason is removing the symptom and not the cause. It's like when you have flu, you take a painkiller for the headache you have. Does it take away the flu? No. It only lightens the load until the painkiller has finished working. If the students have seen the car of father or mother or the house the 'poor' student lives in, they are inevitably going to pick on him. It maybe will last longer, but in the end they will. Better to address the picking (if that is at all possible), than trying to conceal it.

As I said, to me that is not the definition of 'a clear purpose'. If anything, it makes it harder for a teacher to recognise his pupils properly, as Kasie has illustrted, because people tend to look from afar at clothing in order to recognise a person. If you have a full class you go to the Natural History Museum with, and you have had them for a year or more, you will inevitably recognise your pupils because of their style, because of the T-shirt they have worn in your class several times. Try that with a uniform. If there are several schools vsiting with the same thing (because there are only so many uniform colours), it'll be hard to distinguish.

[kasie]

[QUOTE=kiki1982;870214......Better to remember what the children in your class look like for real, then. Can't be very hard, because, end of term, you have had them for a whole year. The teachers of teenagers have a few more faces to remember, but it isn't very hard, only remembering names is a problem..... If anything, it makes it harder for a teacher to recognise his pupils properly, as Kasie has illustrted, because people tend to look from afar at clothing in order to recognise a person. If you have a full class you go to the Natural History Museum with, and you have had them for a year or more, you will inevitably recognise your pupils because of their style, because of the T-shirt they have worn in your class several times. Try that with a uniform. If there are several schools vsiting with the same thing (because there are only so many uniform colours), it'll be hard to distinguish.[/QUOTE]

I knew my own class, kiki - I was in charge of the whole school on that particular occasion, the point at which the buck stopped, newly promoted, it was my first out-of-school-premises responsibilty - stressed doesn't begin to describe it... I actually knew most of the school, about 250 children but Infant schools in UK take in children three times a year (or they did in those days) and some of the tinies had been with us only a few weeks, besides which we had a highly mobile population and some children stayed for only a few weeks beforetheir families moved on again. (And we took them to this huge park! We must have been mad! Mobile phones? Hadn't been invented.) I hasten to add that I wasn't the only teacher there by any means and we had plenty of volunteer Mums as well - it was just that I was acutely aware of my responsibility to return with the same number of children as I started out with - the Head was very concerned about falling roll numbers...

[kiki1982]

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I am sorry if it came out that way. I can imagine that it is STRESS big time in the situation you are described.

In the case you describe, there is no way distinguishing them, not even without uniform then...

My school always went with the teachers of all the classes, but I suppose that doesn't even help in this case, as there were children that were really new...

[Whifflingpin]

"I dont think that a service which is being paid for by the family should have any say at all in how a child dresses, or wears their hair, or what shoes they have on, as long as it applies to the normal standards of society. "

Agree, except for the cop-out of the last clause.
Appropriate restrictions might be "as long as it is not deliberately offensive," and "as long as it is not unsafe." T-shirts with offensive slogans, dangly earings, open-toed sandals, for instance, might not be acceptable, but there are probably no rational grounds for objecting to shorts or top hats or shirtless or painted or...

[kiki1982]

I disagree with that. Sandals are perfectly alright for girls as they are perfectly able to go to work in them in a bank for example. Shirtless is not an option, also not a shirt with offensive stuff on it, because you wouldn't wear it in a highly professional environment.

Dangly earrings though are also alright. So is, for boys (before people start saying that I favour girls at all), 'sportive'-casual: loose shirt, no tie, jeans (not ripped), smart sports shoes etc... It might not be what they want to wear, but it prepares them, within boudaries, for dress codes at work which allow considerable freedom, which a uniform does not.

[Paulclem]

"I dont think that a service which is being paid for by the family should have any say at all in how a child dresses, or wears their hair, or what shoes they have on, as long as it applies to the normal standards of society. "

Agree, except for the cop-out of the last clause.
Appropriate restrictions might be "as long as it is not deliberately offensive," and "as long as it is not unsafe." T-shirts with offensive slogans, dangly earings, open-toed sandals, for instance, might not be acceptable, but there are probably no rational grounds for objecting to shorts or top hats or shirtless or painted or...

It's one of the problems of not having a uniform - people begin to interpret in all ways. From uniform to dress code - one way or the other there has to be a rule. Uniforms make the process simpler.

[papayahed]

It's one of the problems of not having a uniform - people begin to interpret in all ways. From uniform to dress code - one way or the other there has to be a rule. Uniforms make the process simpler.


That's what I'm talkin' about.

[Whifflingpin]

"It's one of the problems of not having a uniform - people begin to interpret in all ways. From uniform to dress code - one way or the other there has to be a rule. Uniforms make the process simpler."

Mostly there does not have to be a rule. Sometimes there has to be a rule - "Hard hats are required beyond this point," for example. But, in general, there is no need for a rule.

[TurquoiseSunset]

At my school, as in most South African schools (except for a few private ones) a uniform is required. I always loved the uniforms. They were comfortable, but not quite appropriate to climatic conditions. However, I didn’t get frostbitten or heat stroke once, so I guess that doesn’t matter. :D
I liked the fact that I didn’t need to worry about what to wear. Having to wear casual clothes to school seems more like a curse to me. Apart from having, at that time, less style than was required of teenagers by teenagers, we didn’t have the money for it. Don’t get me wrong, I come from a middle class family, but the financial outlay needed to fund a wardrobe like that would have been above what my parents could’ve afforded. Our uniforms were expensive and there was a lot of items to buy, but were of really good quality and so lasted me right through high school.
I can’t remember (in primary or high school) that anybody ever got bullied for wearing second hand clothes. It’s possible, but I think it happened rarely.
We also had very strict rules about how the uniform was to be worn and how students should look otherwise.
- Only certain hair accessories: specific colours, etc.
- Only certain short styles for girls, and long hair must be worn up.
- No nail polish except clear (started in 2001). Nails must be short, the whites not growing past the tip of the finger. Nail inspection was done before assembly period.
- No makeup...some got away with a little, but very few wore it anyway.
- Only silver or gold plain studs or standard rings to be worn in ears. One piercing allowed per ear and should be on the lobe.
- No dyed hair.
- No obvious hair product...hair gel is of the devil.
- Only (horrible old lady) school panties allowed. You could wear them over your normal underwear.
- Only beige bra’s.
- Dresses no higher than the width of one hand above the knee.
- Etc. etc. etc.
You were sent home to dress properly if you weren’t, had to wash out/rub out hair gel or mousse. You were given a few days to dye your back to it’s natural colour or you got suspended. If a boy’s hair was too long he a got a day or so to cut it, or was sent home to cut it, or he was handed paper scissors and sent to the bathroom to cut it...depending on the mood of the teacher/principal.

Anyway, I was proud of my uniform and school. The uniform and rules regarding it and our appearance did encourage discipline and basically: ditto to everything Hurricane and Virgil have said on the subject.

I attached a couple of pics...

[blazeofglory]

IN fact I am very disdainful about the way some schools enforce dress codes on students. That limits the individuality and variety or diversity of humans. Let them bloom indifferent colors and boom in their innate styles, not of course in the styles of the few who are dry bones, those so called school authorities

[kiki1982]

At my school, as in most South African schools (except for a few private ones) a uniform is required. I always loved the uniforms. They were comfortable, but not quite appropriate to climatic conditions. However, I didn’t get frostbitten or heat stroke once, so I guess that doesn’t matter. :D
I liked the fact that I didn’t need to worry about what to wear. Having to wear casual clothes to school seems more like a curse to me. Apart from having, at that time, less style than was required of teenagers by teenagers, we didn’t have the money for it. Don’t get me wrong, I come from a middle class family, but the financial outlay needed to fund a wardrobe like that would have been above what my parents could’ve afforded. Our uniforms were expensive and there was a lot of items to buy, but were of really good quality and so lasted me right through high school.
I can’t remember (in primary or high school) that anybody ever got bullied for wearing second hand clothes. It’s possible, but I think it happened rarely.
We also had very strict rules about how the uniform was to be warn and how students should look otherwise.
- Only certain hair accessories: specific colours, etc.
- Only certain short styles for girls, and long hair must be worn up.
- No nail polish except clear (started in 2001). Nails must be short, the whites not growing past the tip of the finger. Nail inspection was done before assembly period.
- No makeup...some got away with a little, but very few wore it anyway.
- Only silver or gold plain studs or standard rings to be worn in ears. One piercing allowed per ear and should be on the lobe.
- No dyed hair.
- No obvious hair product...hair gel is of the devil.
- Only (horrible old lady) school panties allowed. You could wear them over your normal underwear.
- Only beige bra’s.
- Dresses no higher than the width of one hand above the knee.
- Etc. etc. etc.
You were sent home to dress properly if you weren’t, had to wash out/rub out hair gel or mousse. You were given a few days to dye your back to it’s natural colour or you got suspended. If a boy’s hair was too long he a got a day or so to cut it, or was sent home to cut it, or he was handed paper scissors and sent to the bathroom to cut it...depending on the mood of the teacher/principal.

Anyway, I was proud of my uniform and school. The uniform and rules regarding it and our appearance did encourage discipline and basically: ditto to everything Hurricane and Virgil have said on the subject.

I attached a couple of pics...

:eek:

Permit me to say that rules about underwear I find going to far. Firstly, you cannot see it, and secondly it is private so there no argument for wanting these or these underpants. If I want a pink bra I will bl**dy well wear a ink one. As long as it is not under a see-through blouse, no-one has any argument against it. What is the use of such a rule?

The same as hair: no dye fine. But pardon, I have to wear my hair up?? It is not as if we are still in the 19th century. That is invasion of the privacy. No-one has any say over how I wear my hair if it is tidy (which can be a requirement); So no dreadlocks, fine; no dye, fine; but no curls, no long hair, no braids, no nothing? What??

And no, people, I'm not exaggerating. What would you say yourself if your boss told you tomorrow you had to cut your hair if there was no health and safety-issue?

[Paulclem]

"It's one of the problems of not having a uniform - people begin to interpret in all ways. From uniform to dress code - one way or the other there has to be a rule. Uniforms make the process simpler."

Mostly there does not have to be a rule. Sometimes there has to be a rule - "Hard hats are required beyond this point," for example. But, in general, there is no need for a rule.

You quote a health and safety example - there are plenty of health and safety issues in schools like dangly earringsc - sports, body piercings, loose clthing for tech subjects/ cooking...

[TurquoiseSunset]

IN fact I am very disdainful about the way some schools enforce dress codes on students. That limits the individuality and variety or diversity of humans. Let them bloom indifferent colors and boom in their innate styles, not of course in the styles of the few who are dry bones, those so called school authorities

Well, it never bugged me and it didn't limit any one's sense of individuality, it just encouraged us to express it differently. Teenagers all dress the same anyway - what they wear depends on the clique or group they belong to or identify with.


:eek:

Permit me to say that rules about underwear I find going to far. Firstly, you cannot see it, and secondly it is private so there no argument for wanting these or these underpants. If I want a pink bra I will bl**dy well wear a ink one. As long as it is not under a see-through blouse, no-one has any argument against it. What is the use of such a rule?

The same as hair: no dye fine. But pardon, I have to wear my hair up?? It is not as if we are still in the 19th century. That is invasion of the privacy. No-one has any say over how I wear my hair if it is tidy (which can be a requirement); So no dreadlocks, fine; no dye, fine; but no curls, no long hair, no braids, no nothing? What??

And no, people, I'm not exaggerating. What would you say yourself if your boss told you tomorrow you had to cut your hair if there was no health and safety-issue?

I didn't mind the underwear, apart from it looking like something my grandma would wear, and it wasn't seen as an invasion of privacy by us. Underwear could be seen (accidentally), because girls wore dresses.
Summer: we had yellow dresses (see the attached pics...pineapple paradise baby) and they were slightly see-through, so the right colour underwear was important. Some girls tried to get away with black and that looked terrible and very cheap. You probably would have been allowed to wear a pink bra, as long as the colour didn't show through the dress...
We didn't have underwear inspection anyway, it's just when underwear were obviously a wrong colour, like black or red (so when you start looking like a 60's whore) that we got into trouble.
Winter: Shirts under gymslips - we wore normal underwear, then black pantihose over that and then the school underwear over that if we wanted. Mostly we wanted to because it helped the pantihose to stay put, hehe :D and it was warm...

About the hair...where do you draw the line? The idea was to keep hair looking neat and tidy and classy, so I understand the rules. Girls were allowed curls, if natural, but no perms...not that anyone wanted a perm anyway. And we were allowed long hair, but the boys were not allowed long hair.

[kiki1982]

Then have extra rules for sports, technical subjects, chemistry class.

Rugby players and football players also have piercings... They cover them with tape.

You can ask students to take out their dangly earrings for sports class. They have a locker. I don't see anyone complaining about the requirement to dress differently for sports class, wearing a white gown for chemistry and an overall for car mechanics. But to prohibit earrings all day. For sports there is a straightforward argument: you want to have your earlobe ripped off? No? Then take them out. You can even demonstrate what would happen if one got caught when playing ball. Guarantees that you will be understood if they see that it could be really painful.

Coming with the argument that 'it is easier to go the whole way' in my mind is just using the power you have in a bad way.

[Paulclem]

Then have extra rules for sports, technical subjects, chemistry class.

Rugby players and football players also have piercings... They cover them with tape.

You can ask students to take out their dangly earrings for sports class. They have a locker. I don't see anyone complaining about the requirement to dress differently for sports class, wearing a white gown for chemistry and an overall for car mechanics. But to prohibit earrings all day. For sports there is a straightforward argument: you want to have your earlobe ripped off? No? Then take them out. You can even demonstrate what would happen if one got caught when playing ball. Guarantees that you will be understood if they see that it could be really painful.

Coming with the argument that 'it is easier to go the whole way' in my mind is just using the power you have in a bad way.

Your assumption is that all teenagers are logical and reasonable when it comes to dress/ uniform. They are not. Yes the few dictate the rules, but that's society as well. The few criminals dictate the needs of the criminal code. It is just so much easier for the SMT to say - this uniform no exceptions. If a few teens are put out by it then sorry, it's a place of learning not a fashion show - which it may turn into if not applied.

[kasie]

....The same as hair: no dye fine. But pardon, I have to wear my hair up?? It is not as if we are still in the 19th century. That is invasion of the privacy. No-one has any say over how I wear my hair if it is tidy (which can be a requirement); So no dreadlocks, fine; no dye, fine; but no curls, no long hair, no braids, no nothing? What?? .....

Don't tell me your school never had a problem with (whisper it) head lice? Long flowing locks are the delight of these nasty little beasties, hence the requirement for short hair or long hair worn in in a close-to-the-head style or in plaits. Oh, and they love clean hair so don't say it's a problem that would never affect you as you shampoo your hair daily - ordinary shampoo doesn't shift them, either. Once thay are in a close-quarters environment such as a school, they are mighty hard to eradicate so taking measures to prevent the spread of this infestation is surely a courtesy you owe to your fellow students as well as your and their parents.

[kiki1982]

Your assumption is that all teenagers are logical and reasonable when it comes to dress/ uniform. They are not. Yes the few dictate the rules, but that's society as well. The few criminals dictate the needs of the criminal code. It is just so much easier for the SMT to say - this uniform no exceptions. If a few teens are put out by it then sorry, it's a place of learning not a fashion show - which it may turn into if not applied.

The assumption that teenagers are not at all able to judge over their own well-being is totally not realistic. No teenager wants his ear lobe ripped off, no teenager wants his clothes ruined by dirt or even sour fluid in chemistry. I am sure my class mates would have listened if my teacher had addressed that. And it is not so long ago that I cannot remember. Do not exaggerate.

Comparing it to the penal code is not relevant, as the penal code does not take my freedom away, it only prohibits killing and other nasty things. No-one wants others to do that. It is not comparable to petty rules regarding earrings for school. If I commit fraud, I damage society. What does my dangly earrings do? Right, nothing, only get me into danger. The penal code is not there to protect me against myself, it protects me against nasty people (or at least in the future). In that, it even protects my personal freedom, which clearly the earring rule does not do.


Don't tell me your school never had a problem with (whisper it) head lice? Long flowing locks are the delight of these nasty little beasties, hence the requirement for short hair or long hair worn in in a close-to-the-head style or in plaits. Oh, and they love clean hair so don't say it's a problem that would never affect you as you shampoo your hair daily - ordinary shampoo doesn't shift them, either. Once thay are in a close-quarters environment such as a school, they are mighty hard to eradicate so taking measures to prevent the spread of this infestation is surely a courtesy you owe to your fellow students as well as your and their parents.

As far as I know that went in seasons. Mainly in the beginning of the year. I had them once for a few weeks when I was about 10 (?) because it was difficult to get rid of them, but it was by no means something that kept on going for ever in the school. I never had them after that and in my secondary school, I have never known of any whatsoever, and I was in a school with about 1000 students (13 to 18 years of age).

Long hair might pick it up easier, but lice will jump from the one to the other, certainly if children put on one another's hats, one anothers coats, scarfs, play together and that kind of thing. Scratch their head (because lice are itchy) and then give another a hand, after which the other puts his hand in his hair, and there you go, another nit passed from the one to the other. It would surprise me that there are fewer lice attacks in schools where all children are required to have their hair short than in schools where people are allowed to have their hair whatever way they want.

The secret of tackling lice lies in hanging coats far enough apart so that lice cannot get from the one to the other, not like in most schools where they almost hang in piles and are rarely washed. Same for gym clothes. Make sure that children do not ever put on the clothes of another. have parents check for lice. Have children wash their hands often so they cannot transmit by touch. Have them certainly not touch each other remotely above the chest etc. I know it is difficult, but it seems to me that there is very little to be done with only short hair.

[Whifflingpin]

"You quote a health and safety example - there are plenty of health and safety issues in schools like dangly earringsc - sports, body piercings, loose clthing for tech subjects/ cooking... "
Of course, and I think it is appropriate to have dress rules in school that relate to health & safety. Schools are responsible for the safety of children in their care and must be able to make rules related to safety.

"it's a place of learning not a fashion show "
It's a place of learning. That's it. That's what schools are for - not for making rules, in general, about what children should be wearing. Children do not learn better in pink bras or stripey ties, or all wearing the same outfits. If they did, then the same argument should also apply to universities (indeed, universities in some places, particularly in the nineteenth century, did require uniformity of dress.)

"It is just so much easier for the SMT to say..."
That's just the argument that is used to justfy arbitrary use of power everywhere. It is an evil argument that should be fought tooth and nail wherever it is met.

[Paulclem]

"You quote a health and safety example - there are plenty of health and safety issues in schools like dangly earringsc - sports, body piercings, loose clthing for tech subjects/ cooking... "
Of course, and I think it is appropriate to have dress rules in school that relate to health & safety. Schools are responsible for the safety of children in their care and must be able to make rules related to safety.

"it's a place of learning not a fashion show "
It's a place of learning. That's it. That's what schools are for - not for making rules, in general, about what children should be wearing. Children do not learn better in pink bras or stripey ties, or all wearing the same outfits. If they did, then the same argument should also apply to universities (indeed, universities in some places, particularly in the nineteenth century, did require uniformity of dress.)

"It is just so much easier for the SMT to say..."
That's just the argument that is used to justfy arbitrary use of power everywhere. It is an evil argument that should be fought tooth and nail wherever it is met.

They don't learn better, but they are not distracted either.

An evil argument? We are talking about a school providing an appropriate learning environment, and not the arbitrary use of power. In Loco Parentis is the rule for school. It is not a democracy, just as home life isn't a democracy.

Of course there is always the possibility that some Head will be planning world domination...:biggrinjester:

The assumption that teenagers are not at all able to judge over their own well-being is totally not realistic. No teenager wants his ear lobe ripped off, no teenager wants his clothes ruined by dirt or even sour fluid in chemistry. I am sure my class mates would have listened if my teacher had addressed that. And it is not so long ago that I cannot remember. Do not exaggerate.

Comparing it to the penal code is not relevant, as the penal code does not take my freedom away, it only prohibits killing and other nasty things. No-one wants others to do that. It is not comparable to petty rules regarding earrings for school. If I commit fraud, I damage society. What does my dangly earrings do? Right, nothing, only get me into danger. The penal code is not there to protect me against myself, it protects me against nasty people (or at least in the future). In that, it even protects my personal freedom, which clearly the earring rule does not do.

It's not that teens want to harm themselves, but are careless of what might happen. Also you might be judging this by the end teens - I'm talking about 12yr olds onwards. They don't enter school as a mature 16 year old but an immature 12/13 yr old. They need guidance.

Comparing it to the penal code...

I used the penal code bacause it is an example where the few criminals in society cause most of the major problems. I have heard some small percentage quoted as commiting all the car crime in a particular area for example. I'm sorry that you didn't see the reason for that example.


And it is not so long ago that I cannot remember. Do not exaggerate.



I'm sure your class mates and yourself were paragons of reason. If only this were generally so, then there would be no need for uniforms at all. I'd be happy wit that. I don't know where you are from, but the problems in the UK, and the US, by the posts from previous threads, indicate that reason is not one of the qualities shown by some of the kids. The uniform will not solve all the problems - it takes a lot to do that, but it takes away some sources of aggravation, distraction, reasons for bullying, inappropriate clothing, unsafe clothing etc.

[TurquoiseSunset]

... in schools where all children are required to have their hair short...

Are there schools where all children are required to have their hair short??? Why would that be?

[keilj]

smacks of Groupthink to me

I know the military uses uniforms to eliminate a sense of individuality


as far as the defenders of school uniforms - you can always think of reasons/rationalizations for just about anything - doesn't make it right

[keilj]

Are there schools where all children are required to have their hair short??? Why would that be?

yes - I really recommend you Google the case about a boy in Texas (Taylor Pugh), who has been placed in a sort of in-school suspension because he has long hair

smells like Fascism to me

[TurquoiseSunset]

...defenders of school uniforms - you can always think of reasons/rationalizations for just about anything

Same to you, my friend.


...doesn't make it right

Doesn't make it wrong either.


yes - I really recommend you Google the case about a boy in Texas (Taylor Pugh), who has been placed in a sort of in-school suspension because he has long hair

smells like Fascism to me

I know about many of those cases, but what I wanted to know was if there are schools where ALL children, as in boys and girls, are required to have their hair short. At my school boys had to have short hair, and girls long hair, or if short, certain guideline applied (can't remember what though).

Also, in my personal opinion, calling required school uniforms fascist is a bit much. And if school uniforms created group think I wouldn't think much of the children's intelligence and personalities anyway.

...but whatever...

[keilj]

Same to you, my friend.



Doesn't make it wrong either.



I know about many of those cases, but what I wanted to know was if there are schools where ALL children, as in boys and girls, are required to have their hair short. At my school boys had to have short hair, and girls long hair, or if short, certain guideline applied (can't remember what though).

Also, in my personal opinion, calling required school uniforms fascist is a bit much. And if school uniforms created group think I wouldn't think much of the children's intelligence and personalities anyway.

...but whatever...


so you agree with a boy being expelled becasue he has long hair?? Jesus Christ (wipes face, thinking how lamentable that is)

[keilj]

Same to you, my friend.



Doesn't make it wrong either.



I know about many of those cases, but what I wanted to know was if there are schools where ALL children, as in boys and girls, are required to have their hair short. At my school boys had to have short hair, and girls long hair, or if short, certain guideline applied (can't remember what though).

Also, in my personal opinion, calling required school uniforms fascist is a bit much. And if school uniforms created group think I wouldn't think much of the children's intelligence and personalities anyway.

...but whatever...

the words of the wise and sagacious Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam come to mind

Thought police
stay out of my f**king head

Thought police
we are young

Thought police
stay out of my f**king head

[kiki1982]

They don't learn better, but they are not distracted either.

It's not that teens want to harm themselves, but are careless of what might happen. Also you might be judging this by the end teens - I'm talking about 12yr olds onwards. They don't enter school as a mature 16 year old but an immature 12/13 yr old. They need guidance.

I used the penal code bacause it is an example where the few criminals in society cause most of the major problems. I have heard some small percentage quoted as commiting all the car crime in a particular area for example. I'm sorry that you didn't see the reason for that example.

I'm sure your class mates and yourself were paragons of reason. If only this were generally so, then there would be no need for uniforms at all. I'd be happy wit that. I don't know where you are from, but the problems in the UK, and the US, by the posts from previous threads, indicate that reason is not one of the qualities shown by some of the kids. The uniform will not solve all the problems - it takes a lot to do that, but it takes away some sources of aggravation, distraction, reasons for bullying, inappropriate clothing, unsafe clothing etc.

The argument that people are distracted by what the other is wearing, to me, is ridiculous. It would also apply to normal people, and that is clearly not the case.

About age: a twelve-year-old is practically a child. I agree that they need guidance, I disagree that that guidance needs to be general and always the same. Even a twelve-year-old can distinguish between a necessary rule and an unnecessary one. I'd say the worst age is 15 (with girls), however, if you treat them fairly, they are fair back. They can think, you know. We had an issue once, when we were fifteen, with a poster tha had been ripped off the wall because it was 'too sexual'. We didn't think it was justified, as we didn't think so as it was a lovely advert of Levis (I seem to remember) with a woman, topless, with a jeans on, photographed from the back. Nothing to be seen and there were no boys in my year so no-one to be distracted by it. As what was on there, would have been what we had ourselves. On top of that, it had been ripped off, so the corners were torn off. We got our right to put it up in the end and the person who had ripped it, was told to rip more carefully next ime because that it was not the policy of the school to destroy people's property. I support that. We had never problems with rules. Ther was no mass-detention, because we were treated with reason. If teachers were destracted with the picture, they were allowed to put something in front of it. That was for us just fine. We didn't want to terrorise the teacher, we just wanted it up in the class because we liked it. We found it uchworse that the corners were ripped off than that the picture (maybe) had to go.

Applying your argument, all students should walk around in safety-goggles and a white jacket for the one possible chemistry class. We do not require that of students, so there is also no need to ban people from having dangly earrings 'because it might harm them during sports class'. It is just not justified to be always forbidden. I agree that they are dangerous in sports, but that is about it. Maybe also in chemistry if experiments with fire are being done, but then you also consequently need to prohibit synthetic clothing (melting on the skin), long hair, etc. How hard can it be to have them stuck somewhere or have them taken out? How hard can it be to ask students to put their hair in a safety cap or otherwise in a braid or pony tail... For the time being. I am sure they will not object to it. Rugby players do it, so it cannot be hard.

I wanted to show that the penal code is a bad argument, because the penal code does not punish or forbid anything that is unnecessary. Forbidding dangly earrings during French class is ridiculous, because there is no argument as there is no danger. Of course car crime is committed by the small minority, and? Does that mean that everyone needs to be punished for it? What does it have to do with for example dangly earrings. I am punished and cannot wear them because they might be dangerous for about two hours a week? With regard to the penal code, it would be the equivalent of putting everyone in jail in case someone commits a crime. That is ridiculous.

I come from Belgium where there are rules, but still in a fair way. The problem in the UK is that there is too much of 'general rules' to prevent evil that work paralysing. One is not allowed to take pictures of children in case one is a paedophile (no joke, I encountered this in Manchester), one is not allowed to take pictures of London buildings without being asked what one is doing in case one is a terrorist, one is not allowed to enter Downing street in case of the same, one is not allowed to get on a plain without being put virtually naked on a screen in case one is a terrorist, one is not allowed to have too hot water for tea because one might burn oneself. So one is not allowed various things in school, for the whole day becasue one might harm oneself for that one hour??? It is too much. When are they going to prohibit staircases? The children might fall off, potentially die. Sports classes, too dangerous (people might break their legs, twist their ankles). Play-grounds, too dangerous. Paved places where children can play, too dangerous, if thy fal over they might hurt their knee.

Those rules are not justified. One needs to trust, within boundaries, a child's judgment. Otherwise they end up stupid and empty-headed.


Are there schools where all children are required to have their hair short??? Why would that be?

You talked about your school where hair was supposed to be short or worn up. Kasie agreed with it being short with the argument of head lice. I was not the one who started that.

[The Atheist]

yes - I really recommend you Google the case about a boy in Texas (Taylor Pugh), who has been placed in a sort of in-school suspension because he has long hair

smells like Fascism to me

Godwining school appearance rules; now there's an interesting tactic.

[keilj]

Godwining school appearance rules; now there's an interesting tactic.

you're missing the point. but then, that's what internet forums are for aren't they

[Paulclem]

The argument that people are distracted by what the other is wearing, to me, is ridiculous. It would also apply to normal people, and that is clearly not the case.

About age: a twelve-year-old is practically a child. I agree that they need guidance, I disagree that that guidance needs to be general and always the same. Even a twelve-year-old can distinguish between a necessary rule and an unnecessary one. I'd say the worst age is 15 (with girls), however, if you treat them fairly, they are fair back. They can think, you know. We had an issue once, when we were fifteen, with a poster tha had been ripped off the wall because it was 'too sexual'. We didn't think it was justified, as we didn't think so as it was a lovely advert of Levis (I seem to remember) with a woman, topless, with a jeans on, photographed from the back. Nothing to be seen and there were no boys in my year so no-one to be distracted by it. As what was on there, would have been what we had ourselves. On top of that, it had been ripped off, so the corners were torn off. We got our right to put it up in the end and the person who had ripped it, was told to rip more carefully next ime because that it was not the policy of the school to destroy people's property. I support that. We had never problems with rules. Ther was no mass-detention, because we were treated with reason. If teachers were destracted with the picture, they were allowed to put something in front of it. That was for us just fine. We didn't want to terrorise the teacher, we just wanted it up in the class because we liked it. We found it uchworse that the corners were ripped off than that the picture (maybe) had to go.

Applying your argument, all students should walk around in safety-goggles and a white jacket for the one possible chemistry class. We do not require that of students, so there is also no need to ban people from having dangly earrings 'because it might harm them during sports class'. It is just not justified to be always forbidden. I agree that they are dangerous in sports, but that is about it. Maybe also in chemistry if experiments with fire are being done, but then you also consequently need to prohibit synthetic clothing (melting on the skin), long hair, etc. How hard can it be to have them stuck somewhere or have them taken out? How hard can it be to ask students to put their hair in a safety cap or otherwise in a braid or pony tail... For the time being. I am sure they will not object to it. Rugby players do it, so it cannot be hard.

I wanted to show that the penal code is a bad argument, because the penal code does not punish or forbid anything that is unnecessary. Forbidding dangly earrings during French class is ridiculous, because there is no argument as there is no danger. Of course car crime is committed by the small minority, and? Does that mean that everyone needs to be punished for it? What does it have to do with for example dangly earrings. I am punished and cannot wear them because they might be dangerous for about two hours a week? With regard to the penal code, it would be the equivalent of putting everyone in jail in case someone commits a crime. That is ridiculous.

I come from Belgium where there are rules, but still in a fair way. The problem in the UK is that there is too much of 'general rules' to prevent evil that work paralysing. One is not allowed to take pictures of children in case one is a paedophile (no joke, I encountered this in Manchester), one is not allowed to take pictures of London buildings without being asked what one is doing in case one is a terrorist, one is not allowed to enter Downing street in case of the same, one is not allowed to get on a plain without being put virtually naked on a screen in case one is a terrorist, one is not allowed to have too hot water for tea because one might burn oneself. So one is not allowed various things in school, for the whole day becasue one might harm oneself for that one hour??? It is too much. When are they going to prohibit staircases? The children might fall off, potentially die. Sports classes, too dangerous (people might break their legs, twist their ankles). Play-grounds, too dangerous. Paved places where children can play, too dangerous, if thy fal over they might hurt their knee.

Those rules are not justified. One needs to trust, within boundaries, a child's judgment. Otherwise they end up stupid and empty-headed.



You talked about your school where hair was supposed to be short or worn up. Kasie agreed with it being short with the argument of head lice. I was not the one who started that.

Sticking to the point about uniforms - schools have them for the reasons I have outlined above. As I said, you and your peers were reasonable, but that is not the case in many schools here. Also the schools with good results, where the kids are presumably reasonable, continue to have uniforms. Why might that be? Tradition, school identity, ease of maintaining standards etc.

But I don't think these are particularly good reasons, though the school governing body might.

The reason I support school uniforms is mainly bullying and the kind of clothing discrimination that can go on. It is a distraction - not to all, but to a significant minority. It is also it is easy for the child and parent in terms of choice and getting ready - as other posters have pointed out. . A certain amount of clothes recycling goes on in the schools I've seen, and all the primary schools around here have a uniform, so there's a sense of progression through the school's life. It's not suddenly imposed at a random age, but is a recognised part of the schol life in the community. Within secondary schools, they often have one uniform for younger pupils and another for the older ones to acknowledge the difference. This seems to be accepted.

if you treat them fairly, they are fair back. They can think, you know.

They could be but often aren't. My point about uniforms is to acknowledge and aid thinking. I happen the think that it is better educationally than the alternative in the current school system we have in the UK.

I've explained why I used the law analogy . I'm not sure what airport scanners, photographs and particular Health and safety issues have to do with the current debate.

[Paulclem]

smacks of Groupthink to me

I know the military uses uniforms to eliminate a sense of individuality


as far as the defenders of school uniforms - you can always think of reasons/rationalizations for just about anything - doesn't make it right

I think you've got it the wrong way round. The uniform creates a sense of identity in the military. They realised a long time ago that soldiers fight for each other better than for some distant ideal or figure. That's why there are regimental colours and standards as a rallying point.

As for groupthink - what do teens do? they form tribal clusters of like minded like dressers - punks, goths, straights, whatever the currents terms are - and they band together. The claim of individuality is often a cypher for a group identity.A lot of my friends when I was young were punks - highly individual except that they all clustered together with their friends and became highly homogenous. They want group identity rather than individuality, but just call it individuality because sheep are not cool. I'm not having a go - it is normal to have group identity with friends etc.

[TurquoiseSunset]

so you agree with a boy being expelled becasue he has long hair?? Jesus Christ (wipes face, thinking how lamentable that is)

Yes, I do agree with it. If his parents want him to be in that school he should abide by the school rules. If they don't like it they can move him to a different school or home school him. If that's not possible, they should just suck it up and cut his hair.


You talked about your school where hair was supposed to be short or worn up. Kasie agreed with it being short with the argument of head lice. I was not the one who started that.

You completely misunderstood what I was asking and what I had said anyway...but really, it doesn't matter anyway.

Anyhoo, I think people are making too big a deal of the effect school uniforms and rules on appearance have. To me and 99.99% of all the South Africans I know (we all had to wear uniforms) wearing a school uniform was a total non-issue.

[MarkBastable]

At my all-boys school there were very specific rules about how long hair should be, which I can still quote.

"A boy's hair should not be so long at the back that it touches the collar when the head is held upright. It should not be so long at the front that it falls over the eyes when a boy at his desk leans forward over a book. The hair at the sides should not cover the top of the ears."

This was 1975, and long hair was in fashion, so at least half of us totally ignored the rules and had hair to our shoulders. We reckoned that the headmaster couldn't cane all of us. (Apart from anything else, he'd've passed out after the third or fourth climax, the perverted old saddo.) I thought it was perfectly valid to ignore the rule because, whereas I could take my school uniform off at the end of the day, I'd be stuck with the haircut - and I didn't think the school had the right to make me wear my hair like a conscript's in the evenings and at weekends.

Anyway - the rule was unenforceable, though that didn't stop the Headmaster railing at us as we walked past his study window, using that loping gait that causes long hair to bob and shimmy in a fashion designed to piss off those in authority.

In 1977, the Sex Pistols changed everything. Suddenly many boys at school could honestly claim that their hair did not touch their collar, didn't fall over the eyes and was nowhere near their ears, on account of it was spiked up into a bright green mohican that school rules could never have anticipated, but which drove the Headmaster to higher planes of apoplectic rage than the pre-Raphaelite flowing locks could ever have inspired.

He dropped off the twig that year. I like to think that our hair was a contributory factor.

[TheFifthElement]

I'm sure your class mates and yourself were paragons of reason. If only this were generally so, then there would be no need for uniforms at all. I'd be happy wit that. I don't know where you are from, but the problems in the UK, and the US, by the posts from previous threads, indicate that reason is not one of the qualities shown by some of the kids.
Then surely it stands to reason that if:
- uniforms are prevalent in UK and USA, and
- discipline is still a problem
then having a uniform is not improving matters? Because if children wear uniforms from an early age and by the time their 16 they're still out of control something else is wrong. Better to focus on that than whether someone has their shirt tucked in, surely?

Sorry, the whole uniform thing seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to crack an egg by staring hard in the other direction.

Is it not significantly more important to encourage self discipline as opposed to obedience? Is it not better that a child can get up in the morning and decide for themselves what is an appropriate mode of dress and what is not? Kids may be perfectly capable of this, certainly my 6 and 10 year old have no problems looking smart even of a weekend, but if they're not tested how will you ever know?

Yes, a uniform makes things easy. It means that neither the parents nor the kids have to take any responsibility or thought over what is, at essence, quite a basic life skill. Somehow I just can't see how that is supposed to be a good thing.

It has, to me, seemed for a long time that the problem we have in UK (I can't speak for anywhere else) is that obedience and ease are valued over responsibility and self discipline. Kiki makes some quite valid points in this respect. If we want children (and adults) to be responsible we must first give them responsibility. Instead it's just easier to tell them what to do and get cross when they 'disobey'. If we want that to change we need to start differentiating between those rules which are there because they add value (safety, for example) and those rules which are there for 'other' reasons. And we need to ditch the ones which serve no useful purpose. School uniforms don't aid learning, they don't prevent bullying or improve behaviour. They don't improve safety (in fact in some respects they may be more dangerous - partly because of the 'false' sense of security they engender); they can be uncomfortable, distracting and inappropriate (too warm, not warm enough) and they can be enforced disproportionately. If only it were true that life's ills could be cured by clothes perhaps we'd all be much better off. But they don't, so why have them?

And it worries me that we're encouraged to accept it because it's easier than the alternative. And it worries me that there's such a lack of choice. I always thought it was much more important to do the right thing rather than the easy thing. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and out of date. Who knows?

[kiki1982]

Agree with TheFifthElement.

I was bullied. It might surrprise you that I did not wear a uniform and still I was not bullied for my clothes. I cannot recall anyone in my school bullied for them, actually, though we were a uniformless school (as almost all schools in Belgium). And bullied for what actually? I still ask myself that question. After a while it went never to be seen again.

Still, bullying does not depend on uniforms then, does it?

The problem in the UK, in my mind, is too much discipline for discipline's sake. It is, like health and safety, gone mad.

People are frustrated and cease to care if their responsibility for their own lot is taken away. No responsibility = no care. Simple. If people cannot get anything good out of being resonsible or someting bad out of being irresponsible, they will not care, because it doesn't bring them anything.

Soviet Union workers also ceased to care as they got nothing more out of it.

The same with those uniforms: students have ceased to care because they are treated in a stupid way, so they act stupidly. And it only starts in school, it goes on later in life. It is a general trend in the UK as a whole.

In Germany where I live now, 18-year-olds come out of school so amazingly responsible. It is frightning. Some of them go astray, yes (early in their teens), but children are largely left to judge for themselves. And they grow up, behaving responsibly most of them. People also complain here about youths, but they do not know half how bad it is in other countries.

Discipline for dischipline's sake does not work, that is clear. Make them feel the consequences of their own mistakes, and they will live up to them very quickly. It doesn't they are not going to harm themselves, but let them do what they want within boundaries. It works elsewhere.

[Paulclem]

At my all-boys school there were very specific rules about how long hair should be, which I can still quote.

"A boy's hair should not be so long at the back that it touches the collar when the head is held upright. It should not be so long at the front that it falls over the eyes when a boy at his desk leans forward over a book. The hair at the sides should not cover the top of the ears."

This was 1975, and long hair was in fashion, so at least half of us totally ignored the rules and had hair to our shoulders. We reckoned that the headmaster couldn't cane all of us. (Apart from anything else, he'd've passed out after the third or fourth climax, the perverted old saddo.) I thought it was perfectly valid to ignore the rule because, whereas I could take my school uniform off at the end of the day, I'd be stuck with the haircut - and I didn't think the school had the right to make me wear my hair like a conscript's in the evenings and at weekends.

Anyway - the rule was unenforceable, though that didn't stop the Headmaster railing at us as we walked past his study window, using that loping gait that causes long hair to bob and shimmy in a fashion designed to piss off those in authority.

In 1977, the Sex Pistols changed everything. Suddenly many boys at school could honestly claim that their hair did not touch their collar, didn't fall over the eyes and was nowhere near their ears, on account of it was spiked up into a bright green mohican that school rules could never have anticipated, but which drove the Headmaster to higher planes of apoplectic rage than the pre-Raphaelite flowing locks could ever have inspired.

He dropped off the twig that year. I like to think that our hair was a contributory factor.

:lol:

Yes - it used to be mad. Completely unenforceable. My Brother- in -Law was suspended for wearing a red hat in winter at the school my son went to. It's a bit different now but still has a uniform.

[Paulclem]

Then surely it stands to reason that if:
- uniforms are prevalent in UK and USA, and
- discipline is still a problem
then having a uniform is not improving matters? Because if children wear uniforms from an early age and by the time their 16 they're still out of control something else is wrong. Better to focus on that than whether someone has their shirt tucked in, surely?

Sorry, the whole uniform thing seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to crack an egg by staring hard in the other direction.

Is it not significantly more important to encourage self discipline as opposed to obedience? Is it not better that a child can get up in the morning and decide for themselves what is an appropriate mode of dress and what is not? Kids may be perfectly capable of this, certainly my 6 and 10 year old have no problems looking smart even of a weekend, but if they're not tested how will you ever know?

Yes, a uniform makes things easy. It means that neither the parents nor the kids have to take any responsibility or thought over what is, at essence, quite a basic life skill. Somehow I just can't see how that is supposed to be a good thing.

It has, to me, seemed for a long time that the problem we have in UK (I can't speak for anywhere else) is that obedience and ease are valued over responsibility and self discipline. Kiki makes some quite valid points in this respect. If we want children (and adults) to be responsible we must first give them responsibility. Instead it's just easier to tell them what to do and get cross when they 'disobey'. If we want that to change we need to start differentiating between those rules which are there because they add value (safety, for example) and those rules which are there for 'other' reasons. And we need to ditch the ones which serve no useful purpose. School uniforms don't aid learning, they don't prevent bullying or improve behaviour. They don't improve safety (in fact in some respects they may be more dangerous - partly because of the 'false' sense of security they engender); they can be uncomfortable, distracting and inappropriate (too warm, not warm enough) and they can be enforced disproportionately. If only it were true that life's ills could be cured by clothes perhaps we'd all be much better off. But they don't, so why have them?

And it worries me that we're encouraged to accept it because it's easier than the alternative. And it worries me that there's such a lack of choice. I always thought it was much more important to do the right thing rather than the easy thing. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and out of date. Who knows?

I agree with a lot of what you say Fith, but I've never said the uniforms will cure discipline problems, though they may help. I base this on reports in the news of Heads turning round schools which didn't have uniforms, but who introduced them.

I'm not trying to say that that was the major factor - it may have only aided improving the outside and community perception of the school. They talk about getting the staff on board and having a consisten srategy that is carried through, and it was probably that which improved the discipline and performance.

This addresses your first point - not all schools have uniforms, and where the school is failing, they tend to introduce one as part of a package. I'm not saying that it is any more significant than perhaps it helps.

I also see that your children - and mine - and those of my colleagues could do very well without uniforms in schools. What we all have in common is that we are reasonable people with reasonable kids - my colleagues and I would probably qualify as middle class.

But I come from a poor working class family. Clothes were a big issue for us- as I have said. My three youngest siblings suffered at shool with their horrible clothes they had no option but to wear on non-uniform days. I'm not kidding, they were bulied for it and still recall it as very unpleasant. It has certainly affected my siter's self confidence.

That's in the past now, but you can still get a whiff of it . Going back to my son's school - a boys school - the sense of not standing out and attracting attention really affected my son and his nice mates. Anyone who looked a bit odd - perhaps with goth hair was pursued by certain lads and given a going over. My son would not deviate from what was some self imposed normal look in the school. His mate dyed his hair and bought a range of trendy clothes the day he left the school. The transformation was really startling. But it wasn't the case that the uniform held him back. It allowed them to fit in without attracting this negative attention. Free of the school, he felt he could wear what he wanted beause he wouldn't be with the same daft kids at college.

The responsibility would have been too much for a surprising number in my son's school. It would just have compounded their very destructive tribalism. They actively sought difference. I can say they wouldn't have responded well to the choices and reason approach. It's a shame, and this school is not the worst by any means, and I'm not trying to tar all schools as the same. I think it is easier in the current system.

As I've said before, I'm not for uniforms per se. They are perhaps the best solution to the clothes problem in schools as they are now. In a different thread I've mentioned that I don't like the school system as it is. It causes a lot of problems - but that's for a different thread.

[Paulclem]

Agree with TheFifthElement.

I was bullied. It might surrprise you that I did not wear a uniform and still I was not bullied for my clothes. I cannot recall anyone in my school bullied for them, actually, though we were a uniformless school (as almost all schools in Belgium). And bullied for what actually? I still ask myself that question. After a while it went never to be seen again.

Still, bullying does not depend on uniforms then, does it?

The problem in the UK, in my mind, is too much discipline for discipline's sake. It is, like health and safety, gone mad.

People are frustrated and cease to care if their responsibility for their own lot is taken away. No responsibility = no care. Simple. If people cannot get anything good out of being resonsible or someting bad out of being irresponsible, they will not care, because it doesn't bring them anything.

Soviet Union workers also ceased to care as they got nothing more out of it.

The same with those uniforms: students have ceased to care because they are treated in a stupid way, so they act stupidly. And it only starts in school, it goes on later in life. It is a general trend in the UK as a whole.

In Germany where I live now, 18-year-olds come out of school so amazingly responsible. It is frightning. Some of them go astray, yes (early in their teens), but children are largely left to judge for themselves. And they grow up, behaving responsibly most of them. People also complain here about youths, but they do not know half how bad it is in other countries.

Discipline for dischipline's sake does not work, that is clear. Make them feel the consequences of their own mistakes, and they will live up to them very quickly. It doesn't they are not going to harm themselves, but let them do what they want within boundaries. It works elsewhere.

I take your point about responsibility in Belgium and Germany, but it is not the same situation in the UK. I don't think it's about too many rules either. It's about coping - not the best solution - but coping with the current system. If things change then perhaps the kids will be able to discard the uniforms. We need a different system for that though.

[kiki1982]

I see what you are saying, PaulClem, but I cannot help thinking that the clothes-problem of bullying is down to this thing of everyone looking the same all day every day.

As soon as something is different (non-uniform days or in freetime), there is a bigger emphasis on those clothes and the outer appearance of things than there would be if they were used to people looking different all day every day.

It might be, though, that that problem is a typical British thing. As I said before, I have never heard of true clothes-bullying in my school of about 1000 students, whether people wore something scruffy or not. Never heard of it, and I was in school with some really kind of poor children.

In my school, there were Goths, jeans-and-T-shirt people like me, real ladies with make-up and everything, manly girls, fat, short, red-haired, what-not. I have never known anyone to be bullied for any outer feature. Bullying definitely went on though, I don't want to pretend that it didn't happen having been a victim myself. But not for fat, short, slim or clothing of any kind.

Why do people get bullied? Because they are an easy target. In my mind, the clothes-bullying is only there as I said because the clothing-thing is exaggerated as a result of deprivation. Things become more important as they are not available. And you see that outside school as well.

But that's only my opinion if I think about the differences between perception in Britain and my own.

[Paulclem]

Yes, perhaps it's just different situations. I know in my daughter's school they too have tribes - it's the sister school to my son's boy's school. She is a geek, but there are chavs and plastics (having lots of make-up apparently) - all denoted by the girls themselves. Very tribal, with instances of bullying.

[qimissung]

yes - I really recommend you Google the case about a boy in Texas (Taylor Pugh), who has been placed in a sort of in-school suspension because he has long hair

smells like Fascism to me

Ah, yes, I have read of this case, although I have not followed it. The family lives in Mesquite, I believe; I live in a nearby suburb of Dallas. Mesquite is pretty conservative, so I doubt they'll give in.

Let me tell you my school uniform story. It's not about uniforms, though it is about a school dress code. The school I work at tries to have a dress code and to enforce it. Right now, for example, kids are not allowed to wear facial jewelry. That means that if an administrator comes into the room, they take out their nose or lip ring. For years the district tried to get kids to quit sagging. That's where the guys let their jeans sag down below their butt. Then they wear really long t-shirts. I think the district has finally given up trying to stop that.

About five years ago, I had a student, a beautiful, smart girl. She dyed her hair purple. A few months after that she and her guardian decided she would get a better education in a different district. So she went to about five different districts trying to enroll. None of them would allow her to enroll in their schools while her hair was purple, and she did not want to change her hair color. So she finally came back and eventually graduated from our school. Her hair was back to it's original brown, by that time, but she was still a good student.

[Annamariah]

Here there are no schools that have school uniform. Obviously I take it for granted that you go to school dressed just like you would dress when going out shopping or to see your friend.

I've heard that in some schools there's some kind of dress code (no too short skirts or revealing tops), but I've never seen anyone being sent home to change into more proper outfit or anything. Basically kids just dress however they want, and I don't remember seeing that many outfits that I would have thought inappropriate apart from some too revealing skimpy clothes on some teenaged girls.

I think I would have hated it if I would have had to wear a skirt at school every day or something... I think it's good that kids are allowed to dress the way they want, it's more comfortable to be at school that way.

[johnnya]

I run security at a high school that is 2miles from the border of Mexico and had a lock down because a group of people that got caught crossing the border,got away from custody or something like that and ended up 1ft from school grounds. With all the border violence and killings, we have to be careful. The kids in this area high school use uniform shirts, they are more toward a athletic wear but all the same, sometimes kids get camoflouged with them. I had gang members before the uniforms kicked in. Now, i see it all toned down. Once in a while somebody comes along with baggy pants and you see the underwear, I tell them that I already saw the checkered table cloth in the morning and don't need to be remined about it. But it made a big difference here. We have students that live in Mexico, and come here to a school called Valley View in Pharr Tx. But the 2 borders are only within a 5 minute drive to our school. But the uniforms takes that edge away, they do not feel tough with it on.

[Revolte]

I understand the gang thing, but I have to say the world isnt safe no matter what. No matter how hard you shelter someone their chance of being killed by the hands of some nimrod remains.

Clothes should be the last issue in school. I'm a punk rocker and a pretty stubborn one at that. I got in trouble all the time in high school for my clothes and my hair, but it didn't stop me. In the end I had great grades. Stupid people to stupid stuff, well.. We all do stupid stuff, but you get my point. School however, should be focused on education, nothing more and nothing less.

Also I have been to private schools as well, I remember being beat up all the time there, in my uniform. I also remember no one ever getting in trouble for it... Funny how that works. It's hard to notice a dead sheep inbetween houndreds live.

[qimissung]

I hear you, Revolte. I'm all for individuality myself. But if in johnnya's experience uniforms helped make the school environment safer, then I think that should be taken into account, also.

The problem lies in that, if the situation were to change, the board and parents were unable to make that change. I do think schools tend to give lip service to the idea of a student's individuality-to acquire a deep and rich education in which they find themselves and the world- but nothing, nothing could be farther from the truth in American public schools.