Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was growing up, they didn't need uniforms for parents and students to know what was ok and what wasn't with the school dress code. If someone wasn't compliant, it wasn't hard for the teacher or principal to deal with the issue. School uniforms to me are in the same category as zero tolerance policies --- a tool for the administration to hide behind rather than deal with the actual circumstances of individual events. The "I'm sorry, but my hands are tied ..." way of avoiding responsibility.
It wasn't about clothes "being ok"; it was, I believe, intended to level the field and not make poorer students feed bad for not dressing as nicely as their richer peers.
Also to keep the focus on education and socialization versus material concerns.
Uniforms have been worn for generations in my state in Australia in all types of schools and there is very little push to change them. Expensive private schools tend to have expensive uniforms and public school much less so.
I’m of two minds on this issue. While it may help those poor students not stand out as much, some of these uniforms can be a bigger expense for poor families than the clothes they could actually afford. Also, while they are all wearing khaki pants and a polo style shirt of the same color, those who can afford it wear the higher end brands as well as high end shoes and jackets so the class warfare still exist. When parents were responsible they ensured the clothes they bought for their children were within school dress code and ensured they were properly dressed before they left for school. With varying schedules or lax parenting this doesn’t always get done anymore. Some students enjoy the school uniform since they know exactly what they’re going to wear to school. They still have the freedom to dress as they want after school.
I believe the reason why school uniforms are expensive in some countries like Japan is because some dictate type of shoes, summer uniform, winter uniform, uniform jacket, uniform sweater, and the level of detail can become like a military uniform.
Todays dress or casual dress shoes aren’t like in the past. Today they have the soles of sneakers with the tops of dress or casual dress shoes. It’s entirely possible for a school to require leather shoes and still have the cushioning and support of sneakers.
Here if families cannot afford uniforms at all they would almost certainly be provided with them by the school.
Yes, the expensive private schools have very detailed uniforms but when the parents are paying $30, 000 a year it is probably a drop in the bucket.
You'd see it on the news if a boy was denied the right to wear a dress in public school. And I'll bet suburban Catholic schools in the U.S. would allow boys to wear skirts in 2022. Catholic schools in the inner city, Christian Evangelical and Muslim schools, probably not so much. When my wife worked at a residential treatment center for youths back in the 90's and 00's, the youths were required to dress according to their birth gender but I'm sure anything goes today in those centers (if they still exist).
I’m of two minds on this issue. While it may help those poor students not stand out as much, some of these uniforms can be a bigger expense for poor families than the clothes they could actually afford. Also, while they are all wearing khaki pants and a polo style shirt of the same color, those who can afford it wear the higher end brands as well as high end shoes and jackets so the class warfare still exist.
The point of school uniforms is to eliminate expensive branding. No logos are allowed.
You'd see it on the news if a boy was denied the right to wear a dress in public school. And I'll bet suburban Catholic schools in the U.S. would allow boys to wear skirts in 2022. Catholic schools in the inner city, Christian Evangelical and Muslim schools, probably not so much. When my wife worked at a residential treatment center for youths back in the 90's and 00's, the youths were required to dress according to their birth gender but I'm sure anything goes today in those centers (if they still exist).
P.S. a jumper in the UK is a sweater.
In the US, it's a collarless sleeveless dress, typically worn over a blouse. Those jumpers lasted forever. I don't know how the fabric was made, but it was indestructible. Same for the sweaters. Of course, the required shoes were a different story. The old stuff was donated to the school and resold at a fraction of the original price. Money was never an issue and uniforms were a great equalizer.
No US Catholic school allows boys to wear skirts. The schools are under the control of their archdiocese and not free to make their own decisions.
No US Catholic school allows boys to wear skirts. The schools are under the control of their archdiocese and not free to make their own decisions.
Hence why the post you quoted referred to public schools specifically (and what I implied in my post earlier to this discussion). Religious schools, like you said, can largely make their own rules regarding such matters.
When I was growing up, they didn't need uniforms for parents and students to know what was ok and what wasn't with the school dress code. If someone wasn't compliant, it wasn't hard for the teacher or principal to deal with the issue. School uniforms to me are in the same category as zero tolerance policies --- a tool for the administration to hide behind rather than deal with the actual circumstances of individual events. The "I'm sorry, but my hands are tied ..." way of avoiding responsibility.
I went to schools that required a uniform and schools that had lax dress codes. Where I went that had a relatively lax dress code the clothing wasn't a huge deal. There were a couple outliers that dressed like goths but even the kids that I know in retrospect came from relatively poor backgrounds didn't stand out due to their clothing. Paradoxically, I think that's because it was largely an upper-middle class demographic at the school. Any bullying that came about because of clothes was more linked to a lack of taste or preference (or sometimes stricter parental control) as opposed to economic conditions.
But from what I've observed, in areas where there are a lot more poor to working class kids, it becomes a status symbol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere
It wasn't about clothes "being ok"; it was, I believe, intended to level the field and not make poorer students feed bad for not dressing as nicely as their richer peers.
Also to keep the focus on education and socialization versus material concerns.
I think it was also about the school removing destructive and nonproductive displays of individualism. If you wanted to stand out amongst your peers, you'd have to work harder, either in the classroom or on the football field or in the band room or the theater. I remember the principal of the school saying something of the sort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
