Do school uniforms weaken your property values? (public school, basketball, bullying)
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.
I had uniforms at my private prep school growing up for part of the time. By high school they got rid of uniforms altogether.
My kids are not in school that require a uniform. And the city schools only require them until 5th grade (although there are a handful of K-8 schools and those require them for middle school as well.)
I wore a uniform at a prestigious private school in London, and my child wore a uniform at a private school with a 95% college acceptance rate, with at least 80% receiving significant scholarships.
Depends on what school uniforms signify in a given place.
Here, they signify affluent private preparatory academies, so the connotation is very different than in the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder
I wore a uniform at a prestigious private school in London, and my child wore a uniform at a private school with a 95% college acceptance rate, with at least 80% receiving significant scholarships.
The gist of the article is that a negative opinion may be formed by prospective home buyers when public schools require uniforms.
Private schools can do what they want, and they probably don't use uniforms as a means to control large quantities of unruly students.
I think "but property values!" is a novel complaint from adults compared to the old "but freedom of expression!" that you typically hear from students.
Uniforms are normally required in schools where the way kids dress becomes a problem or a distraction. If the problem does not arise, the school does not normally require uniforms. It is not about rich/poor or race, it is about whether the school has problems due to the way kids dress. Some charter schools leave it up to a vote by parents at the beginning of the school, some allow a vote each year. Many or maybe all public schools that ask kids to wear uniforms, it is optional. However parents like the idea and put their kids in uniforms. It avoids problem or distractions due to: offensive clothing either offensive content on shirts etc or too revealing; fashion competitions that set rich students apart from less wealthy ones (most uniform policies we have encountered also include shoes); gang related "colors" that can touch off fighting, bullying or exclusion.
I do not see how it has anything to do with real estate values, except if it actually prevents some of the distractions, fighting, bullying etc, then conceptually the kids will perform a little better on tests and the school will get ranked higher and real estate values will go up.
Precisely. They are usually indicative of a per-existing problem that is being masked with a band aid solution.
I did not grow up with school uniforms. There were parochial schools, and elite private schools in my area that wore uniforms or followed a dress code. The parochial school clothes were, in general, cheaper looking but not awful. The private school outfits were more preppy and yet, relaxed.
With the advent of "Charter Schools" and "Christian Schools", I see a lot of kids wearing polyester blend "Gildean" polos and Walmart khakis or navy blue chinos. Girls seem to wear the same shirts, but occasionally with a polyester blend skirt.
None of this is impressive.
In areas where there is no problem with gangs or inappropriate attire, I never see these uniforms. Parents dress their own children, and by HS, these values are inculcated into the student.
Does it LOWER property values? I would say "no". They were probably low already.
When I see these clothes on public school students or the presence of charter schools or fundamentalist "Christian Academies" - it's usually because the area is down scale.
I've known sought-after charter schools to require uniforms, and I've known inner-city schools that required uniforms to do away with gang colors and even the playing field for low income kids. It isn't the uniforms that lower the value. It's what's behind them.
Good point. I think it may have become an unintended signal.
In areas where there is no problem with gangs or inappropriate attire, I never see these uniforms. Parents dress their own children, and by HS, these values are inculcated into the student.
Does it LOWER property values? I would say "no". They were probably low already.
I tend to agree with you. If the school is at the point where it is considering it, then the ship has already sailed.
I certainly understand where she's coming from, though, but her logic puts the cart before the horse. The school uniform at public school presents an image that comes with a lot of negative baggage. It isn't that different than metal detectors at entrances. It isn't that the metal detectors make the school dangerous, its that dangerous kids force the need for metal detectors.
Uniforms are common in (k-8)public schools in South Florida. They were certainly not detrimental to high property values in our experience, we netted over $300,000 in profit when we sold after a short 3 year work assignment.
A lot of the Catholic schools have always required uniforms. I don't see that as any influence on property values in that situation. That's a good point about requiring them in failing public schools. I didn't know about that.
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.