School Dress Codes? Uniforms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

That's what I'm talkin' about.

"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.

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

: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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

... 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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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

---

Same to you, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

...doesn't make it right

---

Doesn't make it wrong either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.