We've had a lengthy debate over school uniforms in the past and I'd like to see how the thinking has evolved.

Personally the lack of evidence that uniforms have substantial effects on school performance or safety makes me wonder whether the issue is a red herring politicians wag around to avoid talk over more difficult an important issues.


Are school uniforms good policy?

What affect do they actually have on the conditions of our public schools?

Is the attention payed to the issue in proper proportion to its importance?

Are school uniforms good policy?

Too vague a question to answer. It depends on what you mean by "good." If you value "respect for authority," then they are good. If you value "individuality," then they are bad.

My point is that the benefits and disadvantages of school uniforms are entirely subjective. My research indicates that there is no good, objective evidence one way or another.

For example:

Link



What affect do they actually have on the conditions of our public schools?

See above; nobody knows. All evidence one way or the other that I can find is anecdotal. As noted above, the symbolic effect of uniforms -- of a school taking any action which it deems to be helpful -- may have some benefits, due to the well-known "halo effect."

Link



In this particular case, the perception that "my school is doing something" translates into "my school is getting better." School uniforms are all sizzle and no steak. They are advertising.

Is the attention payed to the issue in proper proportion to its importance?

Bingo! Nope. It is certainly not of vast importance when one considers all the other factors that go into the education system.

My personal feeling is that schools should not have uniforms, but should have reasonable dress codes. ("All students must wear orange socks" is not reasonable.) That seemed to work well enough back in the antedeluvian days when I was in school.

turnea:

I attended Roman Catholic parochial schools and so we had uniforms. I once talked with the one parish priest about the uniforms and he didn't give either of your two reasons [safety/school performance]. Instead, I was told while the church could not stop the one child from being dropped off via the Mercedes and the other via the Pinto, the church could ensure that class distinctions were less likely to be made among students with all wearing their uniforms. The companion notion expressed to me was simply that if we all wore the same clothes, then maybe we'd all realize that we are the same. The other companion notion was simply that with all wearing their uniforms, no one would be making fun of the clothes that others wore and so no one need feel ashamed that he or she was wearing something less than some others. And what was I to say to that? Here's Wikipedia's statement of the purpose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_school_uniform

And we didn't have this in my day, but apparently we have it in Newark now:

http://www.rcan.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=f...;feature_id=656

So I guess there's one more reason that we can add to the reason[s] given to me.

Here's somebody else's statement of purpose:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2..._equalizer.html

Re the matter of whether or not good policy, I would have to say, yes. There's no reason that I can see why little Jane and little Johnny need to be made fun of because their parents cannot afford to keep up with the fashion trend[s], or if not that, because little Jane and little Johnny have a taste in clothes considered less worthy by some. In short, I find the notion of the "great equalizer" entirely worthy. If the self-esteem and sense of community that the school uniforms are designed to protect and create are considered "conditions of our public schools" then I would also say that school uniforms would have a positive effect in our public schools. Lastly, I cannot answer no. 3, as I don't really know how much attention school uniforms are receiving.

I dunno. I mean do they increase respect for authority either?

Typically all it does is annoy the students in the short term and do nothing in the long term.

I too have seen studies and most agree that uniforms don't really change anything in the schools. Gang prevalence, student self-perception, nothing.



...dreadfully over-infomed lad that I was I would have pointed out no positive relationship between student self-esteem and school uniforms has been found.

Like the study I quoted says student self-perception actually was lower among student with uniforms.

I understand that uniforms seem to make sense on paper, but in practice it simply doesn't work.

I think that the function in smoothing class distinctions, is probably overstated, especially these days, when Johnny has an iPod nano, and Jimmy does not...

One thing that parents have to do is teach children appropriate behavior, such as how to dress appropriately for the situation. This is no small feat with teenagers. Uniforms make parenting teens easier, in that there is no "fight" about whether something is appropriate for school, and believe me in that 20 minutes you are trying to get them out the door, fights about clothing adds precious minutes to the conflict which you can't afford on a school day. Moreover, it can teach kids that sometimes you just have to dress nice. A lesson that will be useful for their later lives in the workplace, in court, etc.

...but if a uniform is forced upon a student what responsibility does it actually teach them? There's no self-discipline involved.

..and what's appropriate for school?

Kids spend half their lives there, it's a second home. Which isn't really a bad thing.

Maybe it's the Montessori/Arts School experience talking, but casual clothes are no impediment to learning.

There's all this concern that if kids are free to where what they want is will decrease their respect for school, as if slapping a pair of blue trousers on them is going to help.

I was a teenager not too long ago and I never once fought about what was appropriate despite never attending any school with uniforms.

Uniforms policy can't parent for the parents, teaching appropriate dress requires getting kids to "buy in" to those values. Force can never do that.

I think this is the most convincing point I have read. Aside from the obvious inappropriate clothing, I don't know how dress codes or uniforms are going to change the behavior of a person. Strong parenting is the answer to the problems relating to the behavior and actions of our youth. Attendance is solved with good parenting. Drug use problems is solved with parenting. Violence is solved with parenting. School uniforms only cover the body, not the behavior of the person.

turnea, I don't know how to reply, as you have ignored the rest of my post. Obviously, you were a good kid and you know how to dress. Good for you. You obviously disagree with uniforms. OK. Believe me, the points on teen parenting still stand. As for the 'appropriate situation' I wasn't referring to school. I thought I made that clear. We wear suits to weddings, uniforms to school, etc. You claim that 'forcing' kids to do something doesn't teach anything would be news to most parents.

Boy it took me a while to reply.

Notice I never said forcing kids to do something teaches then nothing, I was very specific.

It teaches them "how" to do something, but is doesn't teach them "why."

It doesn't develop self-control or critical thinking.

Consequently it cannot teach them to wear appropriate clothing in various situation it just teaches how to put on the school uniform... which I hope they already knew (left leg... left side...)

Since there is no reasoning involved their can be no wider applicability.

1.) No. It's a hassle for all parties involved given that the administration has to worry more about what kids do than how they perform. Wasting resources to enforce something as trivial as dress when one could be focused on... I dunno, teaching?... seems a violation of why we're forced to attend school in the first place.

2.) Most public schools don't have a uniform policy. Some of my private school friends have a color scheme but my Catholic school friends have a definite wardrobe, but neither situation is "public" in the sense we think of public schools in this country. But addressing the pros/cons of uniforms, I can only say that they're pointless. If someone really wants to make someone feel inferior, words work a lot better than a shirt from American Apparel. If someone feels like acting out to authority, they'll do it regardless of what's stamped across their chest. Uniforms are an equalizer only in the sense that it makes picking an intruder from your midst all the more simple, but I've personally witnessed the low morale at schools that impose uniforms.

3.) Considering schools imposing uniforms are in the minority and most public institutions without a dress code perform better than those with one, I have to say that it isn't an important social issue. I went from a uniformed middle school to an open-ended dress code policy at high school and I felt better about myself because I could take ownership in my appearance and not feel unimportant in a sea of khaki and navy.

Universities don't have uniforms, and social researchers can say that the data doesn't count because people at university choose to be there. Well, uniforms make kids want to go to school even less because in most cases they're uncomfortable, unflattering, embarrassing or downright disgusting. It shouldn't be up to the school to regulate the freedom of expression of its students. School officials are not the Khmer Rouge and we're not Cambodians to be pontificated to.

A few years ago when my daughter started junior high she began wearing uniforms. At that time my wife and I supported the idea of getting away from the notion that school had to be a fashion show where kids tried constantly tried to one-up the other with whom was rocking the most bling and designer gear.

Now? We are absolutely opposed to uniforms. There is a proposal to make all the high schoolers go to uniforms as well. We plan to attend the school board meetings with the community to voice our opposition.

Our gripe is simple: Why should the students have to wear uniforms while the teachers can dress like total slobs? I don't know how far back BoF goes back as a teacher, but I remember when the dress code applied to the educators as well as the educated. My expectation is the teachers and their union will fight tooth and nail against forcing teachers back into suits and ties or pantsuits, but we are equally determined to fight for the kids not to be turned into widgets on an assembly line.

Or to put it more bluntly: uniforms suck.

Ah, cool parents.

Uniforms obliterate any form of personal expression that is essential to the development of identity. When everything is handed to a child, from how to dress, when to eat, where to go, who to associate with, etc. it robs that child of the development of a singular character that is so important in life. Some kids do set out to put others down through clothing, but wow, it's such a minority that it's almost comical to see some parents crusade for uniforms, which add additional cost to a household because they must buy an all new wardrobe for that child, because I know of no child who would wear their uniform to lounge around in on the weekends or holidays.

And kids are tough little people. A lot of them don't get hurt and simply laugh it off that Susy has the "most bling."

Good point! I would think teachers would need to follow whatever dress code they put forward for the students, or higher. This is also not the case at the school my daughter goes to. I agree that the union probably will fight this, but think that leaves the school in a precarious situation, in that how do they argue all the benefits of uniforms while disregarding them for the teachers? I'll have to think about whether or not I want to raise this as an issue at our school. The teachers there do dress pretty casually, but until just now it hadn't bothered me, or seemed to impact the students negatively.

I think the key here is that dress (within the limits of a reasonable dress code) does not have a substantial affect on student performance or values period.

Student, Teacher. It literally doesn't matter.

This issue concerns me so much because so much energy is wasted on this fake solution to our educational problems.

It typifies our fixation on the law and order outlook on education where discipline is seen as the key issue, one which finds its root largely in irrational generational, class, and racial prejudices.

...rather than evaluating or education problem rationally.

Are school uniforms good policy?

Once again, I find myself in the position of only being able to relate how it has affected someone close to me.

My daughter was ridiculed and ostracized at our local public middle school because we couldn't afford to dress her in Aeropostale, Hollister, or Abercrombie & Fitch clothing like her better-heeled peers routinely wore. She was very depressed at that school and her grades suffered a lot.

Since my daughter has been attending a public charter school where uniforms are required, she has not been ridiculed for what she wears. She has actually become fairly popular since her classmates have gotten a chance to know who she really is. In addition, her grades have improved dramatically.

There are variations in colors of uniform shirts and styles (long sleeve or short sleeve). Hoodies can be personalized with the student's name and year of graduation if they want. So there is some choice involved.

In addition, there are "dress down" days when the students can pretty much wear what they want, as long as their pants don't droop, etc. They always look forward to these days, but it doesn't seem to degenerate into pettiness over who's wearing what.

What affect do they actually have on the conditions of our public schools?

I can't speak for other students in other schools; I can only relate my daughter's experience.

Is the attention payed [paid] to the issue in proper proportion to its importance?

I would have to say no. There are many other issues that need to be addressed regarding public schools, attitudes of students and the quality of education they receive. But this is one possible solution to peer problems that many students encounter.

But this is so much cheaper than something that actually addresses the breakdown of education in this country, turnea. The government doesn't have to shoulder the cost of uniforms since schools make the choice and pass the cost onto parents.

As I have posted before- uniforms are another band aid on a gushing chest wound my brutha.

The only problem, the core problem, the only real problem- is that we blame everyone BUT those that deserve blame for our educational system- the parents.

It is not the teachers fault, the NEA, the school board's, the liberals, the democrats, gawds, lack of or too much- but the parents.

I have seen too many schools with no money and no resources turn out kids with a great foundation for post secondary education.

But in those countries- the parent's don't really see school as a "free babysitter' like we do in the US- that is the core problem- we let the education system have most of the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES of being a parent. We want the school to feed them correctly, make them read the right things, choose what they need to learn etc.

That should all be the parent's decisions AND responsibility.

go to three or four school board or PTA meetings in a row.

When there is nothing controversial to discuss- it is the same few, time after time, to take the time to show up. Until "Bobby has two mommy's" book pops up- and BAM- now everyone is SUDDENLY interested in thier child's education.

There is no problem with our school system as it is- there is only problems with the parents.

In complete agreement. But this is an inevitable development that will continue. IMO, there is a correlation between increased involvement from the state and increased parental negligence. It does not stop with school uniforms though that issue is quite the benign example. After school programs, hot lunch programs (and now hot breakfast), mental health services, sexual reproductive services and on and on are all geared and driven toward serving a segment of the population that continues in it's negligent ways.

I'll stop there as it wanders too far off. I do not have enough of a problem with uniforms. It will control some of the more extreme wardrobe styles that serve only as a distraction and at worst a serious threat to the other students. The school has a practical need to experiment with measures to manage the crowds as it were. These measure will do nothing toward encouraging the creation of responsible little adults though.

I would love to see anyone try and substantiate this correlation, because in my view reality crossed the street when it saw this coming.

How dare the children eat and participate in after-school programs! That only good for the economic elite. When given to the poor it causes a sense of entitlement.


That's what a basic dress code is for.

Meanwhile discipline is way down the list of what is really wrong with American schools.

Actually Turnea- to me, the negligent people that are abdicating thier children's educational responsibility are those that are the working poor on up- the poor have problems enough- they get a pass in my book - but the parents that work 80 hours a week each so they can have the shiny new SUV and such- well, those are the one's to blame for educational mess in the US.

It is the people that CAN afford to spend some time with thier kids but prioritize other things ahead of that bothers me.

My kid goes to a "lottery" school- Russian Immersion. One of the reasons "lottery" schools are popular with school districts is the increased parental participation that most school's see with these programs. In my Daughter's school- we have a PTA, then we also have the Russian Mir program that is part of the PTA- those meetings are PACKED with parents. The school is older, one of the oldest in Anchorage (which means not that dang old by "lower 48 standards" BTW ) but it is not exactly 'state of the art" or "new" either. But the parents particiapte in a big way, and it shows, in many ways- not the least of which is the increase in all standardized tests, across the board.

No Turnea- I am not talking about the disadvantaged in inner-city schools- they have a plethora of poverty-related problems in thier schools- and thier schools are often the safest place they can be, which is sad by itself.

It is suburbia and the middle class that are driving our education problems- by blaming everyone but themselves for thier kids apathy in education.

Maybe Turnea or Nighttimer will be so kind as to post the statistics showing improved "poor" issues among minorities regarding education- not the least of which is teenage pregnancy- while whites are sliding the other way- especially in suburbia. One of you dudes I think posted it earlier?

Well, remember that an outsider's point of view looking in is hardly the same than the person living it. Some parents do classify things like alcohol, work, or their own social life as more important than the development of their kid[s]. Normally, it's easy to say don't have kids if you won't do the work, but we know how often this [doesn't] happen[s]. Alas, I like to believe uniforms are just the outgrowth of the school system's inability to address bigger issues.

It is a very sore point with me- considering the bias against single dads and fathers in particular in this country- seems the whole damn country "respects and admires" the single Mom- may sound harsh, but they can all go to hades for all I care. NOt that I am bitter - but when I was a single father- I had to struggle, no help, from nobody. I was told several times 'well, there was help if you are a single mom, but we don't have anything for single fathers"-

I worked SO hard to keep my kids, and the house they live in, nothing luxury mind you- just a second hand truck, a small, modest house, and custody of my kids.

I have always volunteered at the school, even when I was married still. There is a stigmata though still for fathers- you may be that "pervo" that is there to hit on kids. Doesn't matter that, at our school-the only horrific abuse, sexual and physical, that has made it into the news- was a woman, but as a man, you have that stigma, just for being there. I NEVER go into a bathroom where a kid is already in it, and if one walks in, I get out, whether I finished my biz or not, and make sure and ALWAYS have a female volunteer or teacher present.

Now I am remarried, have custody of my children, and my only deficit is that I have an ARM that I took so the divorce would not take the roof from my children's head- realizing, that it would be no cheaper to rent than to own, considering how "modest" my house really is- NOT a mansion.

Yet, I see fathers and mothers that DON'T have my hectic schedule, that AREN'T struggling, that have PLENTY of time on thier hands- many married stay at home Mom's I know personaly- upper middle class in economically- and they don't even pay attention to thier kids homework- my daughter finishes her homework, on the commute home, in my truck, on the day it is assigned- she is done for the week before we arrive home on monday- and these WASPs are calling ME on sunday night, homework due on Monday, asking me questions about the homework. They don't even bother to look in the kid's backpacks to see what is in there half the time- I inform many of them what is going on when they ask.

But boy, a discussion comes up about "what to do about the educational system'- it is all about the NEA, teachers fault, not enough money for schools, too much money for schools, not enough discipline, too much homework and "liberals" that are school systems failings- and have a blind eye as to thier own failings.

Many of these folks are my friends, and I can't say 'well, really, you suck as parent when it comes to educating your child"- and not one of them is LESS educated myself-and, in fact, most of them are 'people of letters"- LOTS of letters.

My parents didn't give a rat's fanny about my education, except for religious indoctrination- - and I am NOT going that direction for my kids, and one of the main reasons I am getting a degree, is because it is a well known fact that if you have a degree, it is most likely your kids will too. Live by example and all that. My nephew and I will graduate together- BTW- I enrolled him in class myself, his mom, my sister, was kind enough to ask for my help - but that kid would have never seen his talents realized unless SOME adult took interest in it- I was the only one. My sis is a good mom, and raised incredible boys, I love them to death, but she totally expected the public school system to educate her children- and took no interest unless one of them got a bad grade.

So, in every single "education" debate- I will never accept ANY educational reform that isn't a reform aimed at making parents reponsibile for thier kids education- as far as making sure they get one anyway!

"Uniforms obliterate any form of personal expression that is essential to the development of identity."

To borrow the fitting line from that certain fictional television character, what color is the sky in your world?

And that because I was never aware that my baseball and hockey uniforms "obliterate[d] any form of personal expression that is essential to the development of identity." And also because there are more ways than one to express one's self and so if not in the fashion that Bono once termed fascism [and rightly so] then maybe something in an area a little more self and world changing.

And Mary Ellen says:

"I teach at a Catholic school so, of course, my kids are in uniform. I do have to deal with the infractions but there are consequences that are upheld (as part of our discipline code). But the point I want to make has to do with individuality and creativity.

Two years ago my student council officers were giving tours to prospective parents on an Open House day and the students were in uniform. A father asked the kids if wearing their uniforms didn't stiffle their creativity, their indivuality. I held my breath but figured the truth would be worth hearing. Without missing a beat, one of the boys said that the uniform allowed him to present his creativity in other aspects of his life. Another chimed in that her work spoke for her as a person and that without having to focus on clothing, she wasn't so preoccupied by it. Phew!!!

I didn't think of the question in this manner at all and was blown away by the answers (and so was the man). When really seriously conversing about uniforms vs. 'free dress', my junior high students will tell about how uniforms are 'okay' and they appreciate the sameness there and lack of worry over clothes. They also mention that they then can spend their clothing allowance on more 'fun clothing'.
Just a view from here. Mary Ellen"

And so back to baseball and hockey. Some of us let our play do the speaking for us and we wore the uniform with pride. You might say that what we did in the uniform gave the uniform its color, its hue, and its meaning. So rather than letting the uniform define you, why don't you objectors define the uniform by everything else that you do. That's not a question, but a statement, with the cruel irony here being that in defining the uniform as a limit, you yourself have made it so.

And now for more from Mary Ellen, this time on the subject of "rebellion":

"I spent my entire education in a uniform, albeit in a private school. I never felt that my creativity was stifled, and that I couldn't express myself. Frankly, I got rather creative in trying to figure out ways of being just enough out of uniform to get hassled about it, but say, "I'm still wearing my uniform!!" In conversations with my extremely wise former headmaster, she suggested that "being out of uniform" was a totally harmless way to allow us to rebel and feel like we'd gotten away with something. And as a low-maintenance sort of person, I loved picking up my kilt from the floor and throwing it on every morning."

And me and my pals would often intentionally untuck the shirt tail there as a form of "rebellion". And so rebellion gets channeled into a relatively harmless affair. And here Mary Ellen and I thought that we were getting away with something when all along that was the plan. But now we both know that the "control" and the "getting away with something" were simply the illusions of our misperceiving minds. There was no control and so there was no getting away with something and the final score, in her and my case, Headmaster and Mother Superior 2 - Mary Ellen and Kiv 0. Looking back, I can't say that I would have it another way, since if untucking the shirt tail served as the release in lieu of some more destructive act, then so much the better.

And, Cruising Ram, you are correct. In the Philippines, education is seen as the only way out for the poverty-stricken masses and more than a few go to nearly unbelievable lengths to provide for the education of some. And in the end, well, I ended up with my bachelor's and a J.D., but after later seeing what I saw, even I regret not taking better advantage of the opportunity that was mine and not theirs. Hopefully, my God and your gawd will be merciful in that regard.

Lastly, turnea, categorical statements are usually reserved for fools. The single exception is when we are talking of things like, on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, forces of the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked that certain United States military reservation known as Pearl Harbor and also other United States military reservations in the Hawaiian islands." With that we can say, "period". But not here.

And, truly lastly, going back to this notion of limiting individuality, there are implicit dress codes throughout our society, and it's only because I won't be heard by the court, that I don't show up wearing my high tops, blue jeans, t-shirt, and my one Lakers hat on backwards. And the expectation is about as "hard" as expectations get, since there is no law, court rule, etc., that proscribes the dress of the members of the Bar. And while I'd certainly like to have my Lakers hat on backwards, just as Tom Cruise liked to have his bat, I'd like to think that just as with the uniforms of baseball and hockey, that it's what I do in the uniform, and not the uniform, that counts. Pity that we have the same problem in our larger society with the adults, and so no suprise our children, since every study ever done has reported that you jurors out there have some irrational belief that what we wear has something to do with the merits of the cases of our client[s]. Of course, maybe if some had finally learned that the uniform does not define the person but the person the uniform, well, maybe then we might have some justice that is not based on Armani or not.

Very well. Strictly speaking I can only say that scientific evidence indicates that gravitational attraction exists between all masses and is inversely related to the square of the distance between them and school uniforms have no affect on student performance....

..but we aren't 100% sure of either.

I mean I'd think that that clinging to this idea of uniforms as an agent of change would require some empirical evidence.

Are school uniforms good policy?

I tend to agree that it is good policy. I am not 100% convinced that this is an actual driver, but children in many schools with uniforms excel. For public schools, uniforms are used as a bandaid to address gang dress, economic/fashion differences and other seemingly cosmetic but very real problems.

There is little doubt that Catholic schools (the poster child of school uniforms) outperform public schools in every conceivable category, even when adjusted for "circumstances".



Catholic schools in particular outperform other types of private schools. Again, I don't attribute the success of Catholic schools to school uniforms but the uniform is a subset of the discipline and sense of community that these schools instill.

What affect do they actually have on the conditions of our public schools?

I believe there is a community sense generated by everyone dressing similarly. The cliques that form over gang colors or goth dress or other wardrobe distinctions are very real and although they may not disappear when everyone wears similar clothes, I would think they do become less pervasive.

Is the attention payed to the issue in proper proportion to its importance?

As a public school matter, school uniforms should be addressed as a minor piece of the discipline issue. When teachers are assaulted, school require metal detectors, and children are in an unsafe environment, uniforms will do nothing.

I also agree with CR (did I just say that??) that parental involvement is the #1 factor in any child's education. My experience is that Catholic educated children have far more involved parents because they directly see the cost of education and they want results for their money. The parents are motivated and they in turn motivate the children. The parents attend school activities, the parents show up at meetings, the parents seem to care how their kids do instead of blaming the schools.

turnea - you don't think there are countless parents taking advantage of this increased "nanny-state" mentality? Really? Answer me this and then we'll see about "substantiating this correlation".



Where did I suggest that the children have some nerve eating and participating in after-school programs? And what is it with this "economic elite"? Oh boy, I smell class warfare (and I forgot my playbook)! ANY parent who could do otherwise but does not for their children is considered negligent in my book. OF COURSE, there are those who are more legitimately struggling to make ends meet. We cannot ignore the reality of what happens to many of these children in those situations. And yes, it makes sense that the schools would step in to a degree. I believe we can agree on that.



I'm OK with that also. Do you condone dress codes that would prohibit certain colors and styles of clothing that have nothing to do with issues of sexual morality?

OK! Look, I don't dismiss the broad, academic thought that went into your ideas head, Vangaurd, and I totally respect your God-given right to seek the model of public education that you want for yourself, your family, your community, etc., but whoa: the idea that the public school is taking over the role of parenting is less simple than the slippery slope you make it out to be.

All the teachers I know trumpet the same problem they have with their students: low parental involvement. PTA meetings, parent-teacher conference, signed test scores, signed report cards, all of this is designed to corral parents into the process. The public schools aren't trying to cut the parents out... they're trying to pull the parents in! And by the way "nanny schools" aren't a new concept... "in loco parentis" is in Latin for a reason.

I'm not saying your correlation doesn't exist, and shouldn't be rooted out on a case by case basis. Politically, Im a firm believer in "different strokes for different folks." You do you, orange county will do orange county, and we'll all let NYC do NYC. Come summer break, we'll get together and share notes, starting with...

The recovery district of New Orleans: a miraculous little quadrant -- relatively speaking. Its one of the few bright spots in a very broken system. The story goes: a few years before Katrina, educators, legislators, and politicians of all parties realized that the city's broken public school system was obviously feeding the insane crime rate, and it was senseless to fight crime without improving the public school system. They are two sides of the same coin.

So, long story short, NoLa created the recovery district, and then massively funded several upstart public charter schools. Principals and superintendents in these schools were free to try experimental, very avant garde educational techniques. What's that phrase -- if its not broken fix it? Well, the corollary of that phrase is the New Orleans public school motto: just about everything is broken, try something creative, fast.

I bring this up for a reason. The district embarked on many bold initiatives, including an interesting 1:1 laptop program. Results Pending. More to the point, several public high schools began offering breakfast, lunch, and dinner at the school. Three hot meals. The results were staggering. You can read the article here:



The article goes on to credit Mr. Vallas for dropping the truancy rate by 15 percent. And, as he did in Philly and Chicago, he raised test scores, improved mathematical proficiency.



The reason I bring all this up, especially the last paragraph, is that different communities have different needs. You might object to such a system in your neighborhood, totally understandably, I support your objection -- except that it works for the people of New Orleans. It probably wouldn't even work two parishes over in Kenner or even in Baton Rouge, but it works for the crescent city.

So, given the depths of the social dysfunction that New Orleanians are dealing with, I think its OK for them to tread onto the slippery slope of government nannies midwifing our babies and teaching them how to recite government lies or what have you. Trust me, New Orleans is bleeding. I've personally witnessed too many shootings go down in New Orleans to let reasonable, but faraway abstractions get in the way of demonstrable, quantifiable progress.

So if this program gets even five percent of the student body into a decent college or trade school -- if this program gets three kids in every grade to go beyond their bleak, violent horizons -- then I don't give a hoot what the American Enterprise Heritage Abstract Bootstrap Institute thinks of the Nanny State or Government Coddling.

Because, respecting what you say about increased state involvement correlating to decreased parental involvement, the single mothers of new orleans were giving up long before the government stepped in. In fact, I dont think many New Orleanians think of their government as a very "active" force in their lives. More like another absent father.

Continuing on: the problem of parental negligence predates, at least in this case, government involvement. And I dont see how offering three healthy meals that kids seemed to lack anyway is going to lead to a worsening situation.

The way I personally conceive of it is this: any sane child who climbs his or her way out of the insanity of new orleans, into a middle class adult lifestyle will have no compelling reason to punish their offspring with a second generation of government indignity. No matter how valiant the underlying intentions, getting all three of one's meals from a school cafeteria is a form of indignity. It beats the indignity of going hungry as a child, and it pushes kids back into school, towards, ideally, college -- so it's both the lesser of two indignities, and an indignity with a purpose.

But c'mon, did your grandfather really make you walk barefoot to school for 8 miles in the snow? Probably not. Parents -- the normal, average, good ones at least -- tend to want to give their kids a better life than they got. So I see this particular program as exactly the sort of program that would, in an ideal world at least, phase itself out. When the great depression ended, WWII vets didn't make their baby boom kids line up for government soup in the welfare lines. They served up hearty meals and told their kids to be thankful they had it so good.




Now, like I said, this program would make no sense whatsoever in Idaho, Orange County, or even Acadia. It would be pure, government effrontery, a socialistic takeover of rural or suburban american mores and values. But for everything turn turn turn there is a season turn turn turn.

Interesting logic, but inaccurate. You pick to play sports. Children are forced into attending school. Just the facts when dealing with cultivating a psyche. Uniforms in sports are completely different from uniforms in school. Uniforms in sports deal with numbers and management and audience-ease. Children in classrooms aren't that hard to relate from because they're not being watched from bleachers a hundred yards away.

I've been a bit busy so I'll try to do this in one sweep.

vanguard I do not agree that the nanny-state mentality is very prevalent in our society. I don't think that feeding school kids breakfast or organizing after-school soccer counts as overdependence on government.

Amlord your study doesn't even address uniforms. I think we can both see that what your proposing based on that report is a best a (pretty wild) guess.

I think this whole focus on parenting as the prime mover in education is a great way to avoid reforming our education system.

There will always be parent who for whatever reasons aren't as involved as their kids education as they like.

AS CR has pointed out, for many this is simply because they are busy trying to make ends meet. In any case what we are discussing is government policy which has a lot of room for improvement.

What we have not seen is any evidence that uniforms constitute any improvement whatsoever.

It is indeed hard to point to why, exactly, students who attend Catholic schools--the standard bearer in school uniforms--outperform their similarly situated peers. As I've said, uniforms are simply a piece of the puzzle: a sense of community, a de-emphasis on dress as a denoter of group affiliation, and a method of taking (to some extent) financial differences away as a focus.

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/269



Of course anyone who says that school uniforms cause a major difference is oversimplifying the problem. But school uniforms are a component of a larger social structure and eliminate several negative and divisive factors.

turnea:

Here is some empirical evidence:

http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=435...mp;nav=menu68_2
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dis...0228-A1-00.html

And, turnea, my own experience is empirical evidence. I have substantial doubt, or more correctly, don't believe for a moment that Brunsma and Draa can "control" such that they know just what caused or did not cause what, but I am certain as to my own thoughts on my having to wear a uniform to school for grades 1 through 8. And lucky for me, I had the contrasting experience, since for one semester here and one semester there, I attended public schools. I can't guarantee that one's child will spend the time spent on picking clothes for school on something more useful like one's studies, but I do know that one's and others' clothing occupies more mind time in public school than the private school with uniform. Been there and done that. So too my classmates. Ms. Draa said it best in an interview:

Appearance matters. A school that doesn't have uniforms is like a fashion show every morning.

Been there and seen that. Then at lunch break one day there was that hard foul during the bball game on the one classmate who had been making sport of some other soul's attire. The other soul wasn't my friend at the time, but the nuns had taught me well, and so, my elbow, meet his face.

And going back to our gal in Reynoldsburg wishing to make a fashion statement, well, she will, in her uniform as the french fries cook at McDonalds.

And see Brunsma's quotes there in that Columbus Dispatch piece. He reads more into what we think that school uniforms can accomplish than we do. Hardly fair. I also wonder whether his being "mixed race" and pidgeonholed as such by humans on both sides of his mixed race has rather influenced his perception of self-identity and individuality. For the cruel irony, for those doing the pidgeonholing, it didn't and won't matter what he wears as he wears his fashion on his skin.

Oh, and Brunsma, well, he's either stupid in one respect or a liar. No win for him in the one respect. In interview he said:

"On that last point, there is no evidence that uniforms save money."

My mom begs to differ and so does this parent:

"First, from the perspective of a parent: Pros--(a) clothing costs are cut almost in half no matter what the experts say. Been there; done that. My expenditures for school clothing decreased 45% to 50% the first year."

Again, she, I, and my mom, been there and done that.

And for what Brunsma singularly fails to understand, as Mary Ellen reports:

"I have worked in districts which had uniforms and those that did not. The board in one district phased uniforms in during my administration. I saw a marked difference in attitude and behavior after uniforms went into effect. They instilled a sense of pride. In addition, the uniforms say to kids (subconsciously) that this place is different..."

The man probably sucked at sports and so didn't play. If he had, well, every coach has given the speech about what putting on the uniform means. And it's different, as in, not the mall.


VDemosthenes:

Might I ask what someone in row 40 has to do with my individuality and self-expression? Which is to say that there might be a reason why I need the uniform, but that doesn't answer the question re your claim of stifling development of creativity and self-expression, i.e., it is certainly theoretically possible that there is good reason for the uniform but creativity and self-expression get stifled nonetheless.

Oh, and having to wear a uniform also does not necessarily mean that you think that your team's choice of uniform is all that, since in some cases it wasn't.

And let me go back to the soul in row 40 and so for two seasons there, all in row 40 must have been rather confused, since at the end of the year before the two, two teams, West Los Angeles and Huntington Park merged. And what was the new team name that appeared on the uniform? West Park, with a picture of a tiger's face, front on, and so we were the West Park Tigers. Of course, there is no West Park in Los Angeles County and so anyone watching us would be left wondering just where in the hell we'd come from. So too those who suscribed to the Valley edition of the L.A. Times since our league results were reported in the Valley edition sports page. Presumably, some are still on the Google and/or Yahoo maps sites trying to find out just where in the heck West Park is. And did I mention that the red of our uniform is not my best color?

Lastly, re the matter of choice, careful, since if you make a distinction between my freely signing up to play and some being forced to go to school, then you set yourself up for the argument that forcing children to go to school stifles their individuality and self-expression and we just can't have that, can we? Or are some things more important than illusory notions concerning individuality and self-expression? I'd have thought that the students themselves might have learned something by now, I mean, if what you are wearing is prompting the dress code and/or the uniform, then maybe one isn't sending the message that one thinks one is sending by the choice of one's attire. I don't suppose that you'd consider that lesson a valuable lesson that ought to be learned?

Boy, did I step into it on this one! So much for the satisfaction of throwing those callused, unsubstantiated class-warfare bombs! These selected comments are better left for a another topic but I couldn't resist a couple more firecrackers:

drew's quoted article reads as,

I have not seen with my own eyes the damage done to the New Orleans area and can only imagine what it must be like. To the extent that my tax dollars contribute in the effort toward restoring some semblance of secuirty and purpose for the children, they are dollars well spent. Have I stated something that would lead you to a different conclusion?



Again, I have no objection to this targeted effort.



Efforts on behalf of the children are worthwhile. Be careful not to assume this "demonstrable, quantifiable progress" will ever end the profuse bleeding. Certainly it is not the first time extra efforts have been spent in communities that to this day continue to suffer under the pale of poverty, crime, and parental neglect.



Though I agree with these efforts (as have been characterized in your cited article), your attitude, notions of what constitues a worthwhile endeavor, and scope of your ambition are ideas that would send shivers down the spines of a good percentage of Americans - mine included.



Hmmmm, government = "more like another absent father". We'll agree to disagree I guess.



Problems of parental neglect probably predate most cases. The argument is not about that but rather a difference of opinion regards to how much the government should intervene. My, it must have been quite the sad state of affairs centuries ago when government never even contemplated feeding the children at school? Three hot meals will keep the kids alive which is our capital responsibility. Insuring these same kiddos get into college, well that's another story.



Actually drew, it would make sense to me if these other communitites ever found themselves in similar circumstances from such devastation.

Your example, as is quite frequently stated on this forum, is an analogy, albeit a large, "collective" analogy. It just happens I agree with the remedies provided in this case. My earlier posted comments were not about such analogies but rather a more general concern about the government's role in "helping" to raise today's children. I'm sure we are in agreement when I say there are not many other sweet-smelling alternatives. You know, should we just let the kids starve? Believe me, if the government pulled out of such assistance, that is exactly what would happen to many children - many children that could have been otherwise spared had their parents been better stewards. And so, it goes. The government learns of one more essential area in a child's life that enough parents are neglecting and then steps in to cover that deficit also.

Absolutely nothing. The fact of the matter is that sports uniforms exist so they're identifiable. I was always identifiable in a sea of nineteen or twenty-nine other faces to my instructors.

Never said it was.

That has nothing to do with uniforms in places of public education.

Actually, I would argue that point. I am doing a program currently that gets me out of school 7-4 so I attend college three days a week in order to write plays and novels. Most kids know what they want to do, so I would say that in cases of extreme certainty, school is stifling unto itself, but that's another debate. In any event, uniforms are disablers of an essential realm of control. If a child isn't permitted domain over their body, they're never going to take ownership. Total control of what they wear, when they wear it, and punishments in place when they don't is beyond totalitarian and it shouldn't be the schools' jobs to rule children.

This seems more vehement than it needs to be, and untrue. Are you suggesting that today's children don't have sufficient ego strength to say, "You know, this really sucks. I can't wait to graduate so that I can wear what I want, when I want"?

Don't you think that previous generations have grappled with authoritarian school officials and managed to emerge from the experience determined to make their own way on their own terms?

I would suggest that if the school uniform experience negatively affects a student to the point that s/he can't function normally in society, there is more wrong with that student than (literally) meets the eye.

Vangaurd:

We are in large agreement on the New Orleans case, and I think we have both addressed the situation pretty pragmatically. My concern was that the compelling rule you set up -- that schools are slowly overtaking parental roles, and encouraging parental negligence -- has important exceptions. As it relates to uniforms, I think there are communities that are sociologically healthy enough, where uniforms are a bit, I don't know, militaristic. It's a policy that, in some cases, assumes that kids and their parents can not work out reasonable modes of dress

That said, I worked in a school in New York that had a dress code, and I think it taught the students something. The schools population was a mix of chinese, puerto rican, and african-american students, some african african, some Jamaican, some "black." There was, I'll admit, a conspicuous absence of white students, and a even more striking abundance of white teachers... maybe five or ten non-white teachers, total. Typical NYC public school.

But as I said, they had a dress code. And I think the results were mixed. On the one hand kids literally wore their "real" clothes -- jeans, hoodies, tee shirts, etc -- underneath their school clothes (kahkies, collared shirts), which created this weird atmosphere where the kids outfits were a bit like a mask they wore to get by. Like just so you know, teacher, underneath this polo shirt, I'm a teenager who dresses in baggy jeans and long footlocker tee shirts."

I wonder how different the school would be -- for better or worse -- if the kids felt like they were bearing their "true" selves to the world.

But the good I see in the policy was this: they were learning how to navigate the wider world. It would arguably be indulgent to let kids run through high school in clothes that will automatically get them the stink eye as soon as they work into a "reputable establishment."

Personally, I think our attitudes on dress codes were formed during a racist time. I don't think there is anything inherently informal or offensive about doo-rags, or long white tees, or gold teeth. I honestly find gold teeth beautiful in many cases. But the message those outfits signify is often one of rebellion against the wider (read: white) world. That's how I sometimes read said outfits, anyway, and I think a lot of people, especially -- here I generalize -- higher up the age bracket, are going to be a little put-off by such a manner of dress. So I think it's a wise and prudent policy, in this case, for an all-minority schools to slightly and tastefully prime their students for what the wider world holds in store for them. As much as teachers tend to love outrageous, colorful, and adolescent expressions of one's personal style -- they wouldn't be teaching in a high school if they didn't -- I think teachers would do a disservice to their kids if they didn't let them in on a little secret: not everyone is as enamored with outspoken teenagers as high school teachers are.

I don't know, those are just thoughts in the wind, I might have to rethink this. I haven't thought about that dress code in a long time, i'm glad its a subject again. I'll think about it more and come back to this.

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting since I have some Catholic School friends who live for weekends not because of days off from school, but for the chance to wear what they want. It has nothing to do with the inability of a student to function in a society, but it is certainly detremental to the development of an individual ego and the ability to say "you know, this really sucks." Some students know nothing different from uniforms and therefore have no frame of reference other than to say that its nice on weekends not to have to wear them.

It's a start.. though even the study authors admit it's less than an ideal study.

Compare that to the nation-wide scientific study in my first post which shows the affect of uniforms is a resounding nothing.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just not very good evidence.