School Dress Codes? Uniforms?

[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.
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.
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...

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.

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 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.