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.
Since this thread is now about 100 posts old it's time to ask the question:
Exactly how many of you are involved in education, especially public secondary or elementary, and have direct observational knowledge of uniform policies?
If you are unwilling to read context I cannot really argue with you. Notice the quotes and refer yourself to posts #68-73 for context.
It seems clear you are unable to carry on a discussion since you have failed to give a good faith answer to any of my points, used the race card when no racial implication was given, and simply responded by making ad hominem attacks.
Bizarre, nonsensical post. Not worth responding to.
The purpose of school uniforms is advertising, no more, no less.
At the highest economic levels, they indicate the wearer's membership in an elite class. The wearers use their uniform to differentiate themselves from less fortunate groups: "Look at us! We can afford $20,000 a year for private school. We are not like you."
One can see this at work at lower levels, too. Public charters almost always require uniforms, and the kids wear them happily. Why? Because they indicate affiliation with an organization that is not open to all. Even families that are struggling economically will do whatever they need to do to ensure their children have uniforms because the khaki pants/skirts and navy blue sweaters announce to the community at large that the wearers are special and deserving of envy. These students are aspiring to something better. They are on their way!
Poor public schools that take all comers will always struggle with compliance, especially if uniform policies are framed as means of social control. The uniforms simply identify the wearers as members of the underclass, who have no hope of anything better and who must be suppressed. Is it any wonder that families in this situation resist?
The purpose of school uniforms is advertising, no more, no less.
At the highest economic levels, they indicate the wearer's membership in an elite class. The wearers use their uniform to differentiate themselves from less fortunate groups: "Look at us! We can afford $20,000 a year for private school. We are not like you."
One can see this at work at lower levels, too. Public charters almost always require uniforms, and the kids wear them happily. Why? Because they indicate affiliation with an organization that is not open to all. Even families that are struggling economically will do whatever they need to do to ensure their children have uniforms because the khaki pants/skirts and navy blue sweaters announce to the community at large that the wearers are special and deserving of envy. These students are aspiring to something better. They are on their way!
Poor public schools that take all comers will always struggle with compliance, especially if uniform policies are framed as means of social control. The uniforms simply identify the wearers as members of the underclass, who have no hope of anything better and who must be suppressed. Is it any wonder that families in this situation resist?
They are mandatory in public and private schools in the UK, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, etc. Why don't we have them here? Maybe kids would stop acting thugs and more like mature young adults when they are in uniforms?
Public schools in the UK, are not the same a public schools in the USA. They are only public, to the extent that they are free of religious (and other) interference, not that they are provided to the general public freely.
Both my kids (years ago) went to different private high schools (DCDS & Roeper). One had a strict dress code, the other had a more relaxed one.
US private high schools work differently then public ones, since they have high admissions standards & costs, including high tuition rates, and a lower tolerance to disruption.
Currently at DCDS the costs are (for one year of high school):
Since this thread is now about 100 posts old it's time to ask the question:
Exactly how many of you are involved in education, especially public secondary or elementary, and have direct observational knowledge of uniform policies?
I'll start:
I do.
Just as a parent. I helped on the "dress code" online committee for the younger DD's high school.
The purpose of school uniforms is advertising, no more, no less.
That is a false statement.
It is only advertising if the uniform has logos, patches, emblems or accoutrements identifying the school.
A nondescript school uniform consisting of dark blue, dark gray, navy blue or black pants neatly pressed and a white short sleeve, half-sleeve, or long sleeve shirt with tie is not advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
At the highest economic levels, they indicate the wearer's membership in an elite class. The wearers use their uniform to differentiate themselves from less fortunate groups: "Look at us! We can afford $20,000 a year for private school. We are not like you."
No, the wearers use their uniforms to instill camaraderie, which is something you know nothing about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
One can see this at work at lower levels, too. Public charters almost always require uniforms, and the kids wear them happily. Why? Because they indicate affiliation with an organization that is not open to all.
No, that is not why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
Poor public schools that take all comers will always struggle with compliance, especially if uniform policies are framed as means of social control. The uniforms simply identify the wearers as members of the underclass, who have no hope of anything better and who must be suppressed. Is it any wonder that families in this situation resist?
That would completely contradict your previous statements that school uniforms identify the wearer's membership in an elite class.
So, which is it? Can you make up your mind, or do you consider waffling and flip-flopping to be one of the Fine Arts?
When I'm walking down the street or riding the bus and I see kids in uniforms, then I see kids in uniforms. Are they from one of the so-called elite private schools? I don't know. Are they from a run-of-the-mill private school? I don't know. Are they from a charter school? I don't know. Are they from one of the public schools (that perform better than those public schools that do not have uniforms)? I don't know.
I don't really care what school they are from.
And I take exception to the grotesque generalization that students from public schools are members of the "underclass." There are many wealthy and Upper Class and Upper Middle Class students who attend public schools.
The wearing of school uniforms neither stigmatizes students, nor deprives them of liberties.
Students have numerous avenues of self-expression and are free to learn how to express themselves orally, through the written word, through media, through music and through various art forms ranging from ballet to tap-dance to ceramics to sculpture to oil or acrylic paints.
Refuting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Why does the ROTC require students to wear uniforms?
To instill discipline; camaraderie; a sense of self-worth; pride in one's self; pride in a group; to be a team member and to learn to function as part of a group while still functioning as an individual; to work to the benefit of all; to foster egalitarianism; to demonstrate that you are unique, yet one of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Why does the army require soldiers to wear uniforms?
To instill discipline; camaraderie; a sense of self-worth; pride in one's self; pride in a group; to be a team member and to learn to function as part of a group while still functioning as an individual; to work to the benefit of all; to foster egalitarianism; to demonstrate that you are unique, yet one of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Why do private schools?
To instill discipline; camaraderie; a sense of self-worth; pride in one's self; pride in a group; to be a team member and to learn to function as part of a group while still functioning as an individual; to work to the benefit of all; to foster egalitarianism; to demonstrate that you are unique, yet one of many.
Maybe the naysayers will figure it out one day...hopefully before it's too late.
Concurring...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
>>>>> Bingo. It just boggles the mind that people still think that uniforms somehow magically make rotten students into good students.
Nice Strawman Argument. You couldn't have misrepresented the argument any better, even more so since no one made such a claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
The same goes for educational spending. You give a student expensive new books, computers, extra curricular programs and he'll still fail if his parents at home don't care what he does or are failures htemselves as parents giving him zero encouragement. Likewise he could have the best teacher in the world and he'll still most likley fail because a teacher doesn't have near the influence on a child as does a parent.
Given your atrocious spelling, perhaps you might have done better with uniforms.
You need all the help you can get for your education systems. Uniforms help, not hinder.
Laughing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
Uniforms don't work, according to David Brunsma, who wrote “The Effect of Student Uniforms on Attendence, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement” and the seminal book on school uniforms, "A Symbolic Crusade":
Oh, yes, of course, the self-proclaimed rights advocate. Do you think that perhaps he might have a hidden agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
Brunsma concludes:
"Our failure to find a direct effect of uniforms on behavioral outcomes or academic achievement provide cause for a closer examination of the uniform debate. It seems that reformers have seriously considered the educational research showing outcome differentials between public and Catholic school students. However, it is equally apparent that the most superficial policies are those that have been extracted for possible reform efforts…
Instituting a uniform policy can be viewed as analogous to cleaning and brightly painting a deteriorating building in that on the one hand, it grabs our immediate attention but on the other, is, after all, really only a coat of paint."
Did you bother to read the study? Brunsma's Hypotheses were these:
Quote:
H1: Student uniforms will decrease substance use H2: Student uniforms will decrease behavioral problems
H3: Student uniforms will increase attendance
H4: Student uniforms will increase academic achievement
He got his data from this:
Quote:
The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) is used to test the relationships outlined above.
1988?
Um, yeah, whatever.
Quote:
Several controls for student characteristics were constructed. Student minority status was measured by a dummy variable for Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. White students remained the omitted category and all comparisons are made to them. Student gender was assessed by a dummy variable with male students as the omitted category.
In plain English, Brunsma skewed the test to focus on minorities.
Quote:
There were no statistically significant correlations linking the uniform policy compliance rates with increases in either academic performance or attendance
Well, gosh, I guess not after the data groups were skewed and weighted in favor of "no uniforms."
Another researcher made similar idiotic claims:
Quote:
She found that standardized test scores did indeed increase after the implementation of the policy; however, she links this basic increase to students being in “a consistent academic program for a second year and good test preparation practices” (Murphy, 1997: p. 67); thus, arguing that the increase was not due to the school uniform policy.
She just couldn't bring herself to accept that uniforms might actually have a positive impact. Too bad she didn't run the study longer.
Uniforms are long-term affectors, not short term.
If you want to do a proper study on uniforms, then find a school district with at least 2 high schools and and look at students who progressed from elementary school to middle school to high school with uniforms and then those who did not.
Even better would be a district with 3-4 high schools, where you could track students from K-12 in uniform in group of schools and then K-12 without uniforms.
Getting better grades should not be the objective. Not if you have to dress every student the same just to accomplish it. Students who make good grades in spite of the excuses they could be giving instead are the ones who earn it. And I'd rather my son get a B that he earned in full than an A he needed someone to remove a so-called "distraction" from his sight in order to get.
Of course, I'll be doing all I can to make sure he gets A's either way. This includes teaching him how to stay focused on his work, no matter who's wearing what
The purpose of school uniforms is advertising, no more, no less.
At the highest economic levels, they indicate the wearer's membership in an elite class. The wearers use their uniform to differentiate themselves from less fortunate groups: "Look at us! We can afford $20,000 a year for private school. We are not like you."
One can see this at work at lower levels, too. Public charters almost always require uniforms, and the kids wear them happily. Why? Because they indicate affiliation with an organization that is not open to all. Even families that are struggling economically will do whatever they need to do to ensure their children have uniforms because the khaki pants/skirts and navy blue sweaters announce to the community at large that the wearers are special and deserving of envy. These students are aspiring to something better. They are on their way!
Poor public schools that take all comers will always struggle with compliance, especially if uniform policies are framed as means of social control. The uniforms simply identify the wearers as members of the underclass, who have no hope of anything better and who must be suppressed. Is it any wonder that families in this situation resist?
Your whole post is wrong. Our school had rich kids and poor kids. I was the later. I loved wearing a uniform because I fit in and didn't have to wear my old hand me down clothes. Uniforms are much cheaper too. It has nothing to do with feeling special
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.
