This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Public school dress codes

edited February 2009 in Flamewars
What are they good for? Nothing. Of course, private schools are free to do as they wish, but they are free to suck as well. If you think they're good, I believe Jimmy Madison would like to have a word with you.
«13

Comments

  • edited February 2009
    I think they are great. I didn't when I was in high school, but having observed schools with and without uniforms, they actually work fairly well to reduce distraction (particularly among females), level the playing feild socially between the haves and the have-nots, create an attitude of serious/professional study, and they are easier on parent's wallets and time.
    EDIT: I assumed you meant uniforms. Basic dress codes are definately necessary.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    Are you talking about dress codes, or uniform codes?

    From the Center for Individual Freedom
    :

    More recent cases have eroded First Amendment protection in the government-operated facilities known as public schools. The courts have become tolerant of far more domination and censorship in the development process of young impressionable minds than government is permitted to play in any other forum of our society. While it is true that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), courts have placed limits on what students may say and what teachers may teach in the classroom. In Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910, F.2d 1172, 1176 (3d Cir. 1990), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that "[n]o court has found that teachers' First Amendment rights extend to choosing their own curriculum or classroom management techniques in contravention of school policy or dictates."

    Indeed, courts have recognized the right of a school board or principal to decide that a certain subject should be taught in a particular way. In Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986), the Supreme Court noted that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board."
    Post edited by Jason on
  • RymRym
    edited February 2009
    Uniforms might be a good idea in very poor performing schools, as I've seen studies pointing out benefits to poor students. However, as a excellent student, I can say that any gifted or free-spirited students in any public school would balk to an extreme degree, rebel, and generally become disgruntled.

    My high school openly considered uniforms briefly. I was one of the leading forces in preventing it from happening. I basically told the school in no uncertain terms that I would refuse to comply, nor would any of my compatriots, which consisted of roughly everyone on the "college" track of classes. That was sufficient for them to back down.

    Personally, the imposition of a strict dress code or uniform would have only deepened my general disrespect for most of the administration of the schools I attended in my youth, and probably would have negatively impacted my education.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I think uniforms are ok up until the end of junior school but then shifting to an nonrestrictive (i.e. no pants showing above your trousers) clothing policy at the point where you suddenly have to take on the responsibility of things like homework would work well, any ideas?
  • edited February 2009
    Uniforms might be a good idea in very poor performing schools, as I've seen studies pointing out benefits to poor students. However, as a excellent student, I can say that any gifted or free-spirited students in any public school would balk to an extreme degree, rebel, and generally become disgruntled.

    My high school openly considered uniforms briefly. I was one of the leading forces in preventing it from happening. I basically told the school in no uncertain terms that I would refuse to comply, nor would any of my compatriots, which consisted of roughly everyone on the "college" track of classes. That was sufficient for them to back down.

    Personally, the imposition of a strict dress code or uniform would have only deepened my general disrespect for most of the administration of the schools I attended in my youth, and probably would have negatively impacted my education.
    Why? What about a uniform bothered you so greatly?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    School uniforms could be awesome if the schools used some imagination.

    Oh look, I used "schools" and "imagination" in the same sentence. Silly me.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited February 2009
    I think uniforms are better for elementary and middle school than high school (mostly because students that age should be more responsible); however, allowing idiot kids (not all kids are idiots, but some are) to dress however they want can further add to cliques/rivalries, increase distractions, allow for gang colors to be displayed, and encourage kids to take school less seriously.
    Maybe a middle ground could be struck. Perhaps a dress code that required "business casual" clothing and restricted any known or identifiable gang symbols/colors.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    Uniforms might be a good idea in very poor performing schools, as I've seen studies pointing out benefits to poor students. However, as a excellent student, I can say that any gifted or free-spirited students in any public school would balk to an extreme degree, rebel, and generally become disgruntled.

    My high school openly considered uniforms briefly. I was one of the leading forces in preventing it from happening. I basically told the school in no uncertain terms that I would refuse to comply, nor would any of my compatriots, which consisted of roughly everyone on the "college" track of classes. That was sufficient for them to back down.

    Personally, the imposition of a strict dress code or uniform would have only deepened my general disrespect for most of the administration of the schools I attended in my youth, and probably would have negatively impacted my education.
    Why? What about a uniform bothered you so greatly?
    Public entities should not have control over expression, or be allowed to define "decency." There's that pesky first amendment thing. The job of a school is to educate, not play social moderator.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited February 2009
    Except that even public buildings have dress codes and rules for behavior. Moreover, most of the students are not at the age of maturity and do not receive the full rights and responsibilities of the Nation.
    Also, schools have to be social moderators when social distractions impede education.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • I think my school uniform would either be business professional or it would involve lots of leather and leopard skin prints. I haven't really decided.
  • edited February 2009
    Depends.
    Uniforms? No.
    Not looking like a scrub? Yes.
    I'm not saying make all the kids wear khakis and polo shirts. But making the kids wear clothes that aren't distracting (long, baggy pants, shorty-short skirts, etc.) is acceptable. They should be free to wear whatever they want when they're outside of class, but inside the school, a fairly lax dress code should be enforced. Every job these kids are going to have is going to have at least some expectations as to how you dress. There's no reason school should be different.

    This is, of course, assuming that school is really meant to prepare kids for "real" life.
    I think my school uniform would either be business professional or it would involve lots of leather and leopard skin prints. I haven't really decided.
    Make them dress like Hokuto no Ken biker gangs.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • edited February 2009
    Public entities should not have control over expression, or be allowed to define "decency." There's that pesky first amendment thing. The job of a school is to educate, not play social moderator.
    You are making the argument that schools should not be able to restrict expression and restrict access based on any standard? What if a student starts cursing out a teacher and disrupts the class.? That student is only expressing themselves, should the teacher have no rights to restrict that expression by throwing them out of class? Should the principal have no right to suspend or expel students that disrupt school in such a manner?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    I think my school uniform would either be business professional or it would involve lots of leather and leopard skin prints. I haven't really decided.
    Make them dress like Hokuto no Ken biker gangs.
    No! My school uniform would be Battlestar Galactica BDUs. No, wait - BDUs for winter, Kung Fu uniforms for summer.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Why? What about a uniform bothered you so greatly?
    Any expression of authority over me that does not have a clear benefit to me or a reasonable benefit to others is, for lack of a better word, anathema to me.

    Beyond that, uniforms almost seem a form of coddling. You're basically being told that you can't be trusted with even basic decisions, such as how to dress yourself. It feels extremely disrespectful.
  • edited February 2009
    Many employers require stricter dress codes than most high schools - including jobs in public buildings. Should we not prepare our students for that event?
    While uniforms may seem ridiculous to students that were responsible and made good choices, there are many schools where that is not the norm. In those cases educators, administrators, parents and students need to determine where the right to expression and the right to an education should meet. When one person's expression impedes an other's education, then it is a problem that must be addressed.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • RymRym
    edited February 2009
    Many employers require stricter dress codes than most high schools - including jobs in public buildings. Should we not prepare our students for that event?
    Most higher-level non-hazardous jobs have no such thing, though. I've never had a job that paid more than minimum wage which required a uniform.
    While uniforms may seem ridiculous to students that were responsible and made good choices, there are many schools where that is not the norm. In those cases educators, administrators, parents and students need to determine where the right to expression and the right to an education should meet. When one person's expression impedes an other's education, then it is a problem that must be addressed.
    Then if a school imposes uniforms (or any restriction aimed at poor performers), any student who does not require them to succeed should be given an alternate education path. Or, perhaps only poorly performing students should wear uniforms?

    My high school had two separate wings. One wing was for poorly performing students: most of their classes and also their lockers were segregated over there. There were hall monitors stations at the junctions between the two wings all day, and hall passes were only really required in that wing (and not anywhere else in the school). There was very little interaction between the students in that wing and the rest of the students.

    The advanced students were further segregated and had additional privileges, including private study rooms, special areas for their lockers, and access to the school before the official opening time. (Normal students and students from the other wing had to wait under watch in the cafeteria).

    So, in the case of my school, the optimal solution sounds like they should have imposed uniforms only on the other wing.

    This is a hot issue for me due largely to the fact that, while my High School was wonderful, as you can see above, my middle school was the opposite. They were proponents of "Outcome Based Education" in that district, and made a distinct point of removing any performance-based segregation of students. The goal was to get the high performers to assist the low performers in class.

    The end result: a pathetic education. The normal classes were held back to the level of the lowest performing students, and the advanced classes were basically ruined entirely. It was so bad that I ended up going to the high school nearby instead to actually learn something (instead of spending two MONTHS teaching the metric system to barely literate sixth graders while the somewhat-more-literate ones slept in the back).

    My main beef is when poor performers in school affect policy such that high performers are impacted. I liked the fact that high performing students basically went to a different school and played by a different set of rules. Normal students were somewhat more restricted, and poorly performing students were segregated and given different instruction by different teachers.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • At my school, we never wore uniforms. The thought never even crossed my mind that there was something wrong with wearing my own clothes, that I or other people had some sort of problem related to clothes. It's just what I wear, do people actually care about it? Unless someone is wearing something incredibly hideous, what is the point? I just don't understand why there should be a uniform of some sort, it doesn't even fit into my perspective of reality. Ever since I first began school, I have worn my own clothes and I've never made any decisions made on what I wear or what other people wear. I can understand why you would want it in some cases, but these cases are so different from what I live like right now. To have my school have uniforms...just...ugh. No sense make.
  • edited February 2009
    Many employers require stricter dress codes than most high schools - including jobs in public buildings. Should we not prepare our students for that event?
    Most higher-level non-hazardous jobs have no such thing, though. I've never had a job that paied more than minimum wage that required a uniform.
    Most law firms have pretty strict dress codes. Some judges have dress codes of their own for attorneys appearing in their courtrooms.
    To have my school have uniforms...just...ugh. No sense make.
    Just imagine how awesome it would be if everyone was dressed in Kung Fu uniforms everyday. The only thing cooler would be if the school made everyone dress like the Baseball Furies from The Warriors.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Most law firms have pretty strict dress codes. Some judges have dress codes of their own for attorneys appearing in their courtrooms.
    One more reason I'm glad I gave up on my law career. ^_~
  • Wait, so let's say that you have an office full of bright, smart people. What's the point of a uniform? It's uncomfortable, hot, stiff, and all sorts of other negative adjectives. Is it all about "looking professional"? What's the point of that? We're human beings, we know how to act in society. We are polite with newcomers, and we bump chests with friends. Is it perhaps because most people need to wear clothes in order to better manage themselves? I can imagine for some people it can act as a trigger to become or at least act much more organized, smarter, and efficient, but do we really need this?

    Maybe it's the fact that not everyone is smart and bright. In order to raise people to a higher level, you need to put them in suits and use formal language in order to make them step it up a notch. But as a conscious and smart human being, it makes absolutely no sense for me to wear a uniform. I can make good choices about what I wear, I can be trusted to not wear anything that is provocative such as in slogans or showing body parts (But I ain't female ^.~). It's a thing that I find silly, but I can sort of see a reason for it to happen in some far away land. It's just that the idea, applied to me as an individual, simply does not fit. You can't force a circle into a square, don't force me into a uniform!
  • Someone with good Photoshop skills should splice Rym's head onto Sean Connery's body from the film Zardoz. That could be his school uniform.
  • @ Rym:
    I said most work places have dress codes, not UNIFORMS. Even you have to dress nicely to work and have limitations on what you could get away with.
    Also, your point of putting restrictions on higher performing students, while well made, ignores a greater issue. You have to change the culture and social structure of a school that is not performing, which will effect all students. Additionally, a student may perform well on tests, they may contribute to hazing and other distracting activities. There is a reason why many highly performing private schools and even public schools in other countries utilize uniforms. They do create a sense of community, a more professional atmosphere, and minimize some hazing/clique-ish behavior.
  • You can choose to work or not to work for your employer. You can choose or choose not to go to private school. When you agree to work for someone, or agree to attend a private school, you also agree to adhere to their policies. It's a contractual agreement to give up some of your freedom and live according to additional rules within the context of fulfilling your end of the deal.

    Public school is required. You can't drop out until you are much older. You have to go to elementary and middle school, and have no other choice. Thus, any limits on expression within that context, are violations of the first amendment as they come from the government. You might say that kids have no rights, and you are correct. However, we would then have to have the argument about whether or not kids should have rights, and I say they should.

    I think one of the worst things about the way our society teaches children is the obviously hypocritical and unjust "do as we say, not as we do" attitude of adults. We simultaneously teach kids about how wonderful democracy and a fair justice system is, while simultaneously subjecting them to zero tolerance policies handed down by an autocratic administration. Is it not obvious why smart kids despise authority so much? They can see right through that bullshit. Things like uniforms only piss them off and turn them into troublemakers.

    I think it is obvious that there are some kids, who are smart and rebel against any such limitations on their freedom. There are kids who are irresponsible, and need their freedoms restricted to get them on the right path. And there are kids who lie on all spaces in between. I think the only real solution lies in the elimination of our "no child left behind" policies and in full-scale of adoption of an "every child as far ahead as they can go" policy. Kids who achieve need to be pushed ahead as far as possible, as fast as possible. If some kid is capable of learning calculus at 10 years old, that needs to be an option. If there is someone who is 16, can't read, and doesn't behave, military school needs to be an option. If some kids are distracted by clothing and other such things, they might need to go to a school with uniforms. If some kid rebels at authority, and isn't challenged by school, they need to go to a John-Taylor Gatto type place.

    I strongly believe in merit-based segregation in schools. The one-sized fits all system fits least.
  • edited February 2009
    @ Scott:
    I posted this before, but no one answered it and it questions your point:
    You are making the argument that schools should not be able to restrict expression and restrict access based on any standard? What if a student starts cursing out a teacher and disrupts the class? That student is only expressing themselves, should the teacher have no rights to restrict that expression by throwing them out of class? Should the principal have no right to suspend or expel students that disrupt school in such a manner?

    I agree with you in theory on helping children meet their individual potential as soon as is possible, but in even a small population of people, there are vastly differing educational abilities. In one area you would need several schools with vastly different structures in order to achieve that. You would have a 1 to 2 teacher to student ratio. It simply isn't feasible to the extent that you espouse. You can make a few different schools with different styles of learning and diversified programs within each school, but even that would fail with the current limit of resources. You have to do the best for the most, and then provide what options are actually feasible for the rest.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    Public entities should not have control over expression, or be allowed to define "decency." There's that pesky first amendment thing. The job of a school is to educate, not play social moderator.
    You are making the argument that schools should not be able to restrict expression and restrict access based on any standard? What if a student starts cursing out a teacher and disrupts the class.? That student is only expressing themselves, should the teacher have no rights to restrict that expression by throwing them out of class? Should the principal have no right to suspend or expel students that disrupt school in such a manner?
    @Mrs. Macross: Sorry to keep you waiting, but you made me sit down and think about it for a while.

    I can see why you would believe this is my position. However, it is not due to several reasons. For one, there are many embedded issues in this seemingly simple question of how government should control expression: The difference between active and passive expression, the difference between offensive expression and distracting expression, the perceived goals of expressive limitations in school, and the equated efficacy of such policies.

    1) Active and passive expression, and offensive expression and distracting expression

    We've previously talked about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario, and how that is not protected expression. This provides a general benefit to society. Directly yelling at a teacher falls into the same category. There are rules against it to provide a benefit to the class. The problem with yelling at a teacher isn't the words coming from the student's mouth, it's the mode in which they are issued. Speech is an active form of expression, and this particular form should not be allowed.

    I do have an issue with the concept of "cursing," though. Words are arbitrary, and the idea that some words are "good" while others are "bad" is just Judeo-Christian superstition. Government should not have a role in deciding which words are decent. If a student wants to say "fuck," there should be no penalty. If a student wants to yell "fuck" at a teacher, there should, because of the mode of delivery.

    Clothing, however, is passive expression. Clothing cannot cause a disruption in the same way that screaming might in a classroom setting. If you do not like the clothing, look the other way. Having to endure screaming is a non-participatory infliction; but looking at someone's clothing is entirely voluntary and participatory. I am going to ignore for now the issue of nakedness or lack of clothing, because that's not really the topic at hand; when talking about uniforms, we're talking about trading choice of clothing for non-choice in regard to clothing.

    If my clothing has "FUCK" printed across it, or a penis, or a beer can, or a marijuana leaf, or red or blue gang colors, that might be offensive. That's too fucking bad. The law doesn't protect you from being offended. If the shirt says, "I'm going to kill you after school," then a direct threat is one thing; if it's just a matter of "taste" or "appropriateness" or "ethics," then that should be protected expression. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a type of clothing (barring nakedness and the like, as previously mentioned, which is another bag of fish) that would distract students to such a degree that it would actually inhibit the learning process.

    2) The perceived goals of expressive limitations in school, and the equated efficacy of such policies

    At any rate, distraction from the learning process is rarely the named goal when administrators suggest a uniform code. Their plan is generally aimed at social engineering: "evening the playing field" by eliminating cliques, and reducing gang signals. I argue that neither will be affected in the slightest by a uniform; a uniform policy will only shift the mode by which those conventions are communicated.

    Clothing does not make cliques; clothing is only one of the methods by which cliques are displayed. Adolescent castes will always exist, and when authority tries to stamp it out, it only mutates. If uniforms are put in place, children will simply differentiate their social strata by wearing the uniforms in certain ways. Or they'll use hair style/artificial coloring as a clique signal. Or most likely, it will simply come down to who has the most money and the nicest car in the parking lot, or who can afford to play which sports, or buy what food, or who has the best-quality uniform.

    And who among us seriously believes that banning gang colors from the hallways will stop gang signals from proliferating? First, gangs absolutely thrive on codification, so if you further codify their dress they will simply find a way to incorporate it into their gang culture. Second, they will simply find alternative means of communicating gang affiliation: hair color and style, tattoos (temporary or permanent), passwords, manner of speech or slang, hand signals.

    Let's take an example that is local to me. Two years ago, teachers in one school district were alarmed by a TV news story about drug dealers using clothing with pictures of snowmen to signal that they were selling crack. The administration's immediate action? Ban all clothing will snowmen. Now, not only did this unfairly limit the expression of the majority of the students who did not have any connection to the alleged drug-dealing, but it also educated the children on a method of obtaining the drug outside school. In addition, the real drug dealers merely changed their "I'm selling crack" signal and went on without interruption. It was a completely ineffective school dress policy that limited freedom in return for very, very diminished returns.

    This is my basic problem with the uniform hypothesis: The returns won't be what proponents believe. They might save some parents some cash, or cut down on the 16-year-old fashionista drama, but it's not going to be effective as a social engineering tool.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • Or, perhaps only poorly performing students should wear uniforms?
    You're suggesting to discriminate based on intelligence? Not every person is born capable of performing like an amazing student. Forcing these students to wear uniforms, whilst half their class gets to wear whatever they want, sounds like an idea much worse than enforcing a uniform on everyone.
  • edited February 2009
    @ Jason:
    I was only using curing as an example. I meant any disruption of the educational process with words or deeds that may be considered expression. It isn't about being offended, it is about distracting from the goal - an education.
    Also, Jason, you assume that the benefits of uniforms are minimal, when many educators can point to instances where they are great. I will do research when I get home and give you specific examples.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • @ Jason:
    I was only using curing as an example. I meant any disruption of the educational process with words or deeds that may be considered expression. It isn't about being offended, it is about distracting from the goal - an education.
    Also, Jason, you assume that the benefits of uniforms are minimal, when many educators can point to instances where they are great. I will do research when I get home and give you specific examples.
    I'm looking forward to that.

    I guess that even if the benefits are great, I still have an ideological problem with the "ends justifies the means" nature of your argument. I have a real problem trading freedom for security performance or convenience. But if you can convince me, I'm open to listening.
Sign In or Register to comment.