Wait a sec ... you yourself said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what your daughter was wearing and that those kids were just picking on her for the purpose of being cruel. What exactly makes you think that they would stop being obnoxious if school uniforms were instituted? Their need to be unkind obviously has nothing to do with clothes ...

That is quite true, you cannot stop bullying. Is it really better for kids to get picked for how they look or speak than what they wear?

I think so, because its quite a lousy that parents have to fork over hundreds of dollars on clothes so their kids won't get teased about what they wear. Its even lousier if kids have to work so they can purchase clothes so they won't get picked on.

Give parents a break, they have things to spend their money on without having to think about how much their kids will need to spend on clothes to not be ridiculed or fall out of the crowd.

I have three children that have graduated the public school system and distinctly remember the pressures placed upon us as parents to supply the most fashionable clothing money would allow so that my children might feel *cool* in their own mind's eye.

Uniforms are a wonderful idea I think and would eliminate the peer pressures and negative perceptions some kids get of themselves as a result of their parents not being in a financial position to play the every changing fashion game.

I would suspect the biggest opponents to such a policy change would be children's clothing manufacturers/distributors/retailers for obvious reasons.

I imagine so too, but think of all the other industries that will be excited to compete for the newly liberated parental dollars.

Sorry, I absolutely forgot about this thread!

I wouldn't say that we'd have to weed out all poverty in order to take out criminals. Much like this website (http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin065.shtml) suggests:

"Those experts and others suggest that measures such as violence prevention courses, closer links between schools and local law enforcement agencies, smaller classes, better facilities, and tighter school security are much more effective than school uniforms in preventing school violence. And they warn that many school districts may see uniforms as an easy solution to a much more complicated problem."

Simply saying that clothes will somehow prevent crime is ignoring the larger issue of what crime is. Crime isn't about clothes (or, at least not the majority of it), so how will clothes make a positive trend in students across the world? Thats like saying that prisoners, who are indeed dressed in uniforms, are behaving better now! I'd like to see some data on that!

As for the experiment that produced such stellar results:(http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin065.shtml)
"Experts such as Ray C. Rist, a professor of education and sociology at George Washington University, also warn about other factors that may have influenced the Long Beach experience. In a January 1998 Education Week article, Rist discusses the implications of the "Hawthorne effect," which states that a group of people who are treated in a special way may behave differently because of that treatment. In other words, Long Beach students may behave better simply because they are the focus of so much attention. "No one," says Rist, "has ever been able to establish that uniforms, in and of themselves, can result in a dramatic reduction in crime."

No, it isn't. Those who were cruel and selfish enough to say such things as children grow up into cruel and selfish adults.

I didn't smoke a a kid. Most of my peers did. However, I had enough gray matter that I didn't care to take up a habit that blackened my lungs, shortened my lifespan, polluted my clothes, hair, and breath, and wasted my money just because others thought it was COOL. I didn't then, and I don't now.

I didn't laugh at fat kids, or kids with zits, or kids whose parents couldn't afford designer clothes. I didn't then, and I don't now.

Some people are sheep. Others have more individuality and self-respect. Long before clothes matter in school, you are either a sheep or you are not a sheep. My own children fell into the latter category, my brother's children into the former. I don't know whether it is genetics or upbringing; that's a topic for another discussion.

My parents were poor. It hurt a lot when I was teased because of what I wore. As I got older, I recognised my taunters for the insecure cretins that they were, and was thankful that I had never been one of them. Uniforms would have been wonderful. I still would have been teased because of something, I'm sure, but having one less thing to be tormented about would have made school more bearable.

Designer clothes have NOTHING to do with individuality or freedom of expression. They have everything to do with flaunting social status and blending in. If you need external props to have self confidence, then it is a charade. Clothes don't make the person, but only his or her facade.

Chasuk,

I totally agree! Very well written.

Children go to school to learn. If unnecessary distractions
are removed the learning process will be that much more successful,
and children will be spared the ridicule that goes with having an
unpopular wardrobe.

That in itself, however, is not enough to force students into uniforms. I agree with you: students will wear whatever is "in", they're all sheep, etc. But I say, let them be sheep. Children will eventually have to learn that being cool isn't the basis of life. They can try being cool, learn how superficial it is, and ultimately see the light.

If they continue a trendy lifestyle, well, thats their choice. It's not up to the government to force anyone into uniforms.

We are talking about children, not just "anyone." I personally consider most people that I know to be children until they are about 25. The age that one finally emerges into legal adulthood was set arbitrarily, and varies from country to country. In the US, the government decides that you are legally an adult when you are 18, but you still can't drink until you are 21. The government then decides that, even after you are 21, there are certain countries you can't visit (Cuba, anyone?), certain substances you can't ingest, how many people you can be married to simultaneously, whether you can pay for sex, that you have to register for the draft, that you must pay taxes or go to jail, that you can't marry your relatives or your same-sex partner, that they can take property which you OWN if you fail to pay said taxes (you don't own it if they can take it), whether you can buy a vibrator in Texas, that you can go to jail for CROSSING THE ROAD at a non-sanctioned location, what brain-washing techniques they can employ on your children (the pledge of allegiance), etc., ad nauseum.

Portions of my above list were facetious. However, my point still stands: the government restricts a lot of our freedoms, even as putative adults, when we supposedly know how to best conduct our lives. All of the restrictions in my list are more onerous than a mere uniform requirement, which were are talking of in the context of being imposed on children, who haven't figured out, usually, how best to conduct their lives.

There are a lot of restrictions we impose on kids to which they object, but we do it because we know things, as adults, that they can't yet understand, lacking the life experience. Most of the time, they thank us for saving them from youthful stupidity, even if it is years later. I personally am of the opinion that saving a lot of children from years of misery in school because their parents couldn't afford Air Jordans is a no-brainer.

Try explaining to your 8 year old that he has to suck it up and get on with it because a group of kids (probably not his friends) constantly ridicules him for wearing cheap clothes because you can't afford anything nicer. Growing up today is hard enough without having to worry about being made fun of. School should not be a fashion show, and getting used to wearing a uniform of some sort will go a long way towards preparing kids for work. After all, most jobs have a dress code of some sort, and many have uniforms. As for freedom of speech, join a club and/or participate in class discussions.

This brief paper highlights some court rulings in favor of dress codes, link.

How pathetic is that? We can't call people adults until they're 25? Maybe part of the reason for that is because we baby our kids to the point of not even allowing them to dress themselves until they go away to college. Christ, how can we expect kids to become independent, critical-thinking productive adults if we can't even allow them the dignity to have some common sense in choosing their own clothes? I mean, clothes are a pretty basic thing. What does it say about us that we're more willing to force our kids to all wear the same boring uniforms than expect them to have the minimal level of maturity needed to choose their own clothes?




Well, I'm a parent, and I can decide how to conduct my life, and my children's lives. I really don't understand all these people freaking out about how children are "forcing" their parents to buy them expensive clothes. My kids ask for stuff all the time, and I have the discipline and self-control to say "no" when it's appropriate. If you're having huge fights about getting clothes you can't afford, you have to sit down with your kids and tell them you simply can't afford it, and they'll either have to give something up or get a job if they want to spend all that money. Or you can do the same thing your parents did and their parents did: tell them they can buy cheaper clothes or you'll pick some out for them. There's a name for this, it's called parenting. We don't need legislation to make sure parents don't actually have to do any parenting, because the government isn't our parent.

I don't think that the biggest problem a child will ever face is being picked on because they wear Banana Republic or American Eagle instead of Abercrombie and Fitch. In fact, conversely, I think the biggest problem a child faces is being constantly spoiled by their parents. Not getting the exact clothes they want will not hurt them, and will probably in fact help them. They may yell, scream or even cry, but just like many of us did, they'll get over it. Not buying the exact clothes your kids want has never caused any kid or their relationship with their parents any permanent harm.


Moreover, what gives you the right to choose what my kid can wear? Whatever happened to parental rights? Since when did it become your responsibility, or even your right, to dictate other parents' rights? Basically what you're saying is that because you personally feel that it's much to difficult for parents to be able to parent their children, then I, as a parent, should not even have the right to parent? Doesn't that bother you? I mean, I don't really have that much trouble as far as clothes go, though that may change as they get older. However, I'm confidant enough in my own parenting ability that I don't worry I'll be unable to handle it. You may not be, but I am.




Yes, the obviously the way to solve that problem is to pass legislation that restricts both the child's freedom of expression and the parent's right to parent, instead of just trusting parents to do their own parenting. It's basically the government raising our kids. Why not just stick them all in a creche where all the rules are defined by the government as to how they should be raised? I'm sure it would work better than those antiquated notions of "family," "parenting" and "discipline."




Yeah, I'm sure that every kid who doesn't have Air Jordans has "years of misery in school" . Actually, I've found that parents really think that clothes are even more important than their kids do. You can sometimes get the impression that your kids are fighting you really hard because they'll face something terrible if they shop at The Gap instead of Abercrombie and Fitch, but I really don't buy that.

As Paladin Elseph pointed out, most of the teasing really has nothing to do with the clothes, but rather the cruelty of the children. I mean, we all went through High School, we know that every time kids were picked on it wasn't necessarily because they actually did something that bad. In fact, in really compeditive private schools, may on which mandate uniforms, teasing can be at its worse, because of, IMO, the really competitive enviroment. Does anyone have studies showing that schools uniforms prevent crime, end teasing and increase grades? I haven't seen any. I'm thinking that you guys are looking for a wonderdrug that's going to solve all of our problems, but I don't think you're going to find it anywhere, and especially with uniforms.

In fact, I think that uniforms could make teasing worse if you're a poor kid. If you can't afford the uniforms, which are usually equal or greater in cost to normal clothes, then the school has to buy them for you. How do you think the kids are going to react to that? Acceptance and understanding? I don't think so. Do you really think "hey, dirtbag, my parents' taxes pay for your clothes" is so much better than " hey, dirtbag, you shop at Wal-Mart"?

Sean John mosaic Button Up Shirt
Store Price: $64.00


Rocawear Hammer Loop Jeans
Store Price: $69.00



Converse Shoes -
Men's Targa Leather Converse Shoes -
Men's One Star Converse Sneakers -
Men's Synchro
$49.95

COMPARE TO


Men's Wrinkle-Resistant Pants
Price: $17.99

Men's Solid-Color Polo Shirt
Price: $12.99 - $14.99

SafeTStepTM Casual Work Oxford

Size: 9 Regular
Color: Black
Price: $22.99

My uniform costs significantly less than the 'normal' clothes. Can you support the opposite idea, the one you stated? I don't think so!

Prices are from internet stores. Stores include Target.com, Payless.com, UrbanShoes.com, and UrbanCorner.com.


And the items chosen reflect what normal teens are wearing today AND what most school uniforms require.
I'm not worried about the Gap kids compared to the Abercrombie kids, I'm more concerned with the Payless kids and the Footlocker kids. The Gap is hardly poverty, even when compared to Abercrombie and Fitch, but the kid who wears K-mart is always going to get picked on by the one who wears Calvin Klein. Their is no logical reason why we should allow such disparity. While uniforms may have no track record of stopping harassment and ridicule, their is 50+ years of experience that says a lack of uniforms allows it.

You keep coming back with 'uniforms are more expensive', or some variety thereof, which I don't understand. The fact is, children dress better to go to school than to play ball in the park. A child needs several different outfits for each day of the week. They can't alternate between two shirts and two pairs of pants every blessed day like they would a uniform without ridicule. An adult couldn't even do that at work unless he/she wore a uniform.

Now, compare the cost of attire to the basic office worker or teacher, and a hospital worker or military. The clothes are much more expensive for the teacher or office worker. I've done the first three, and my husband is in the military. The very most I ever paid for clothes was as an 18 year old receptionist. At the hospital, I put on one of two sets of scrubs every day, and was set to go. It was very cheap and cut out all of the appearance worry.

That canard has already been addressed, more than once, in the thread. If you're going to repeat such a claim, at least have the courtesy to provide some new information in support of it. Argument by repetition isn't going to get you anywhere.



How would they even know?



I can't find any formal studies with controls etc. but there do seem to be a couple of supporting data points. The most often cited is the Long Beach Unified School District, which adopted uniforms in 1994:



Miami-Dade County followed LBUSD's example, with the following results:



No, it's not absolute proof. It does, however, put the "uniforms do help" argument one step ahead of the "uniforms don't help" one. Can you provide any evidence that uniforms increase school or student crime?

Um, what? I went to a really "preppy" school in this small town where there was pretty much no real estate that you could buy for less than $150,000. I didn't actually live in the town, but rather a ways over in a rural farming area where we owned a house we bought for $30,000. My mother and step-father made a combined income of about $40,000, and what with the payment for two cars and a house, we weren't exactly rich.

I bought my clothes from pretty low-end stores, though later on when my father started paying child support we started shopping at JC Penney's. However, I was not facing this terrible treatment that every child who doesn't buy designer clothes supposedly faces. I mean, you can't really tell the difference between a lot of these clothes. I'm sure that some people face teasing because of what they wear, but I don't think it's either as prevalent or as intense as you claim it is. To tell you the truth, I can't really tell the difference between Marshall's, Wal-Mart, JC Penney's and some of the other higher-end clothes. And, as I've said many times, most of this teasing really has nothing to do with clothes. Kids are just cruel.




I didn't really think of that. I suppose you could just buy one or two outfits and just wash them every day.

However, as I've mentioned before, it's traditional not to make your children wear uniforms everywhere they go. Yes, it's not 100% necessary, you can choose not to buy your kid anything but 2 uniforms if you wish, but then again, that's going to cause just as much fighting as telling your kids that they can't buy ridiculously expensive clothes. Again, uniforms are not the panacea to every school and family problem some people are treating them as.




They don't have to. They know who's poor and who isn't. In fact, they could just level that charge against anyone they felt like, and the kids would be powerless to disprove them.




Well, I have.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html

This is a scientific study that showed that school uniforms did not lead to an improvement in areas of crime, behavior or grades. It tracked kids all the way from eighth grade into college, and yet still found no correlation, much less a causation, between uniforms and improved performance. Well, I guess there was some correlation ... a 0.05 correlation. So it's possible that uniforms help, but not a very good chance. Here's a link to the study itself.

So, you've got a non-scientific anecdotal example where uniforms among a multitude of reforms reduced crime and upped grades in two schools, and I have a scientific study that shows uniforms alone have virtually no effect on these things. I think that just may tip the scales in my favor.

Oh, and there's also this study, this article and this study.


Look, I'm actually willing to admit that uniforms may help in some places when doen in conjunction with a lot of other reforms. In fact, I'm not really that opposed to even having uniforms in elementary schools. However, they're just not the panacea you're making them out to be, they're more like a band-aid. If uniforms really did turn all our kids from gang-banging criminals into perfect students and children, I'd be all for them, but that just doesn't make sense. Parental and student rights trump the minimal effect they may have.


EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION

I haven't seen anyone claim they're a panacea. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

I don't find that one-liner constructive. Care to address any of the points in my last two posts you haven't so far?

Pointing out a fallacy is more constructive than committing one, and I didn't realize a fuller response was mandatory. You certainly didn't provide one on the third occasion that your "uniforms are expensive" canard was shot down, so let's lay off the double standards, OK?

I'd have to say that the articles you present are interesting, but less than compelling. For one thing, three of the four are by the same author (David Brunsma), essentially restating the same results, so we're really only talking about two sources. They both share some serious methodological problems, most notable of which is a tendency to treat suspension/discharge rate as an independent variable. What's wrong with that? Simply that the very same things that lead a school to institute a uniform policy might also lead them to crack down on student behavior. The suspension/discharge rate would remain constant, but students would be suspended or discharged for lesser offenses. This was exactly what happened at the two private schools I attended, where students could be caned for chewing gum or not paying attention in class. Without accounting for severity of offense, Brunsma and Santos could claim no change when the environment had in fact improved significantly (whether or not the change had anything to do with uniforms).

Brunsma's papers also contain other conceptual flaws. For one thing, he's obviously more interested in depth of analysis than quality of data, leading to sound very quantitative but are in reality no more accurate than the somewhat subjective nature of the original measurements allows them to be. Maybe he should apply his talents to engineering, where the measurements really are precise and consistent enough to support his style of analysis. In dozens of places he refers to perceptions and actual outcomes as though the two were interchangeable. He also has some problems with basic logic, as exemplified by one of the passages you probably found pretty compelling:



OK, so improvements in attendance are in part attributable to (psychobabble alert) "aggregate student perceptions of the educational climate"? How interesting. Earlier, Brunsma made this claim:



Ahh, so student perceptions are in part attributable to high attendance? I don't know about you, Rattlesnake, but I can recognize a circle when I see one. Brunsma's work is IMO very interesting, but not as proof of anything. It's interesting only as an example of how some academics abuse statistics to promote a preordained conclusion. I'll admit that the links I've provided so far aren't compelling either, but at least I admitted as much. A big pile of jargon proving nothing can be more damaging to a debate than a flippant reply also proving nothing, because it consumes more of an opponent's time to rebut. Often that seems to be the only intent.

I have no statistical data to contribute.

But it makes sense that children will be less likely to be singled out for teasing or other abuse if their clothing doesn't serve to distinguish them from other students.
In the animal kingdom it's called protective coloration.

Yes, it's herd behavior. But the herd behavior developed in order for the animals to continue to exist. A gazelle in the midst of zebras might catch the eye of a predator sooner than a young zebra would.

School attendance is mandatory for children who aren't taught at home. It might make the school experience a little more ho-hum for those who like to dress more colorfully, but it's definitely better to be bored about your clothes than to be a target for abuse.

Oh my god, a response that makes sense!

That was my point, that school uniforms hurt nobody (you have other channels to voice your free speech), and will certainly help others!

Thank you

Actually, I did. Mrs. Pigpen made a much more constructive response than "that argument has been disproved, but I do not deign it necessary to repeat how or when it was," and I responded to it in my post. You're welcome to scroll up and look at it. I don't know how to respond to a statement like yours, because you didn't offer any information, how can you possibly expect me to respond to that? If I were to sit here and simply say "The idea that school uniforms prevent crime has been shot down many times," how would you respond? Simply the fact that someone replied to my post doesn't mean they "shot down" anything, it simply means they have a different opinion than I do.




How do you figure? Simply because the same guy was involved in three separate studies doesn't mean that those studies are all the same. It's not surprising that the same guy would do many studies on the same subject, seeing as it's obviously something he had an interest in.




You're really grasping for straws here, friend.

Ok, first off, you have no proof that this is what actually happened. So it's a moot point. Unless you can come up with some information to prove this, it's bad debating to introduce it. Furthermore, I doubt that such a scientific study would just ignore a variable like that. However, let's, for the sake of argument, say that these schools really were instituting harsh policies to try to suspend students.

Now, if that were true, then yes, that particular part of the data would be rejected. However, when you look at the study, you see that while suspension rates were one thing they measured, while others included studies on the prevalence of drugs, attendance and grades, among other things such as "school spirit". Also, when you look at the variables at the bottom of the study, you see that suspension is not the only thing they measure for in the behavior category: it also studied how often any disciplinary action was taken and how many times fights occurred. Even if we reject suspension/detention rates as an acceptable variable, can you honestly say that all these variables are too invalid? Furthermore, if uniforms have no affect on if students take drugs, come to school, get in fights or achieve academically, does it seem logical to conclude that uniforms had some amazing affect on their behavior? Come on.

Look, I'm not saying these studies are air-tight or 100% conclusive. However, they're a hell of a lot stronger than anything that the pro-uniform side has show me. It just doesn't make sense to me that simply because people are gray, drab clothes they're all going to instantly become better students, and so far, the facts support me on this. Uniforms are a band-aid, a cheap, quick and utterly useless solution to the real problems that our children face. Pretending that they're going to fix our schools simply is not doing justice to our kids, because if a kid's a gangbanger or a druggie or a nasty son-of-a-bitch before uniforms, uniforms aren't going to change him. It just doesn't make sense.




That's your opinion. Yes, the study makes conclusions, but it's backed up with quite a bit of data. If you honestly think the data is flawed, I'd like to hear why, other than that "suspension rates are unreliable." As I stated before, suspension rates are just one of 30 or so dependant variables in the experiment.




What is that supposed to mean? Deliberately obfuscating your meaning doesn't make you intellectual.




Well, I could claim that your post was an example of how ideologues can foolishly and completely reject science on the shakiest of grounds because it clashes with their preordained conclusions, but I won't. I'll just say that to reject his study and all its conclusions based on the argument you presented doesn't seem right to me. As I said before, it's not definitive proof of anything, but 4 studies that all show the same thing do provide something.





PE, no offense, but your conclusions baffle me. They simple baffle me. Here's a quote from your earlier post:


[Emphasis Added]

What your daughter was wearing did not lead to the teasing. By your own account, her clothes were perfectly fine. Unless your child's friend was lying to you, your daughter was wearing perfectly fine clothes and some kids just decided to be mean to her anyway. How have you come to this conclusion that when kids are teased about what they wear, it's really because their clothes are so terrible? Everything you've posted so far has pointed towards the conclusion that clothes are simply an excuse for kids to tease each other, and not a cause, yet you see it as the other way around. Why?




It very well might. However, if that gazelle looks like it could outrun the lions, they're not going to go after it regardless of the fact it's different from the animals around it. The lion is going to go for the animal it thinks it can kill, be it a gazelle or a zebra or a wildebeest. Children don't just pick on other kids because they look different, that's just a gross oversimplification of the problem. There are thousands of reasons that certain kids face teasing, and I think it's one of the most complex social systems in the world. Reducing it to something as simple as clothes doesn't do it justice. If a girl is picked on because of her clothes, even if she changes them, she'll still probably face teasing. Don't you agree?




Well, it's that a bit of a slippery slope? I mean, the same argument could apply to political beliefs, and lead to an institution of a ban on political debate. You could apply it to athletic ability, and ban school sports. You could apply it to grades, and end the grading system and just operate on a pass-fail basis. You could apply it to a million things, but I guarantee that no matter what you ban in schools, kid will still tease each other.

And I disagree that it hurts no one. How can we expect out children to develop any sense of independence if we can't even trust them with the maturity to be able to choose their own clothes? I mean, that would be really insulting to me if someone claimed that I wasn't mature enough to choose my own clothes when I was 16. Yeah, I really think it will lead to a herd mentality, and unlike you, I don't think that that's a good thing. Kids need to be a little independent at that age, and if they can't even be trusted to choose their own clothes, how can you trust them to be the leaders of tomorrow?

On the contrary, it's bad debate to demand that such questionable data be accepted. It is the responsibility of such a study's author to prove that variables were accounted for, not others' responsibility to prove that they were not. If such obvious potential sources of error are not addressed in the paper itself, it's sloppy research and should not have made it into a peer-reviewed journal.



What a convenient assumption. The fact is, people try to get away with stuff like this all the time. It behooves us all to learn how not to be befuddled by barrages of faulty numbers held together with jargon.



Yeah, there's a nice scientific, objectively measurable quantity.



You're shifting the burden again. The onus is on Brunsma to show that they are valid.



It's backed up with quite a bit of subjective and imprecise data. Responsible scientists don't try to over-analyze low-quality data; the conclusions would be, and in this case are, meaningless. It's like using a micrometer to measure something that changes its size by meters per second.



I don't think circularity is such an obscure concept. Brunsma is trying to use two things as evidence of each other, which is clearly circular.

Putting uniforms in school is a horable idea.Studentss will always find some way to compete or some way to make fun of other people.EXAMPLE: studenst will wear certain shoes,or certain socks,or certain sun glasses,or certain hats.Im 15 and i know about these thing.IT WOULD TAKE AWAY OUR INDIVIDUALITY!!!!!Dont ya'll people understand that.


THIS TO THE PEOPLE WHO THINK ITS RIGHT FOR STUDENTS TO WEAR UNIFORMS.


P.S the kids can deal with it i do i dont wear name brand clothes and i get picked on everyday.ITS CALLED IGNORING THE PEOPLE THAT PICK ON YOU!!!

Rattlesnake:

I simply want to eliminate one excuse. The fewer distractions for kids in school, the better. The teachers have enough competition already to hold the attention of their students. Let the personality of the students be what distinguishes them. For heaven's sake, I refuse to believe that having students wear uniforms is akin to having numbers branded or tattooed on their foreheads.
Wearing uniforms also encourages the thinking that the students are all in this together, that they needn't feel alienated from each other on the basis of clothing.
It's not a sign of fascism or totalitarianism. For every communist country or dictatorship in the world that has its students wearing uniforms, there is a country like England or Japan that also has its students wearing uniforms. I'm not for thought control, just the removal of class distinctions created by what a person wears in school.

Some kids are very sensitive. Some kids can't let teasing roll off their backs. How many readers here still remember the teasing and jabs they experienced in school? In some cases, it builds a stronger person. In other (read "many") cases, it produces hurt that is remembered for most of the person's life.

Where did you get the prices for those jeans and shirt? No one I know (I'm a high school student), except for a couple of people who are wealthy, buys jeans for $69.00! Where did you get these "normal teens" from? Most people I know buy their jeans for about $25.00 - $45.00 max. Same thing with the shirt...who would pay that much money for ONE shirt? The shirts people at my school wear are maybe $14.00-$20.00. Where did you get $64 from? That's just crazy. However, you're right about the shoes. However, even with the uniforms, we'll still be wearing the same shoes!

We don't have school uniforms in my school, but we do have a dress code. Can you tell me how not wearing hats is supposed to improve attendence? In my MS, they told us we had uniforms so that if anyone from offcampus came to our school, they'd be able to pick him/her out of the crowd. Anyways, I can understand some of the dress code rules, but seriously, they say we have to wear skirt's a certain length, however, the cheerleader uniforms are shorter than that, and I don't see a difference. Clothes do not make the person. I know this really nice girl, who had great grades (her grades went over 100% she has a 4.0 GPA), but she liked dressing in short skirts and tops that when she put her arms up, would show her bellybutton. I see nothing wrong with that. She was a great student, and I seriously doubt she was distracting any guys. It's not like guys were staring at her.

Anyways, I feel uniforms leave no room for creativity. Plus, I have to spend extra money to buy them. I mean, I need regular clothes for the weekend, and to hang out with my friends. But, I still need clothes for school.

And clothes are not the basis of teasing. There are many factors besides clothing.

I wore a uniform for 12 years. Trust me when I say it doesn't prevent alienation. In highschool, our uniforms were white polo shirts and grey or blue trousers. For the girls it was white polo shirts and blue skirts.

What resulted is slight modifications of the dress code. White t-shirts with band logos on them and jeans instead of trousers, blue or otherwise, it didn't matter to them. When baggy pants became fashionable, almost the entire school switched to wearing them, including some girls, who also would sometimes wear white tank tops and shirts that revealed their bellies. Usually any deviation too far from the norm would be met with jeers, as would any form of dress too close to the standard. Hell, once I got teased for wearing unfashionable shoes. (Steel-toed black boots. Wasn't so funny when I kicked them in the shins.) And woe be unto you if you wore the wrong brand of polo shirt.

All this resulted in a detention system being setup to enforce a standard dress code. Guess what? It didn't work. People still wore their individualised versions of the school uniform and took the detentions with alacrity. Or they devised ways of avoiding detention slips by covering their tank tops with an allowable blue jacket in rollcall, when the teachers checked the uniforms.

If school uniforms make a difference, it's so minute as to be laughable. In fact, when I went to tech college, which had no uniform, the atmosphere was a lot more friendly and a lot less discriminating (possibly because we had a lot of older students too). I only got called gay once for my inclination towards dressing very nicely indeed.



In my experience, it's not clothing that divides the students amongst themselves, its their idiosyncrasies. I'm positive that even if you can somehow force kids to conform to a set uniform with little deviation, they will still form themselves into cliques.

(If what I have said has already been repeated, forgive me, but I'm reallly too tired to go through 8 other pages.)

School uniforms just don't ride with kids because they want to be able to express themselves. If a girl wants to wear a shirt that reveals her belly button, then she is obviously expressing herself, saying she is a Brittany Spears freak or very flirty.

Also, seeing a whole wave of kids with the same colors would drive me bananas. Talk about drab. You need to splash some color in the place. School's drab enough...uniforms would just make it worse with the colors.

I posted the online stores I got prices from, re-read the post.

These are all items that I routinely see a lot of the teens in my area wearing. I work with a great deal of 16 to 17 year olds, and this is pretty standard attire for them when they aren't in their work uniforms!



You can't think of any way to express yourself other than your clothes? How about writing stories or poetry? What about taking music classes or joining after school clubs with people who have similar interests? What about taking art or shop and creating things? I don't see how a uniform would keep you from being creative, honestly.

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=7]
In my honest opinion, i see school uniforms as being unconstitutional. Does it not say in the constitution that we have the freedom of speech, expression, and pursuit of happiness. If you force students of a public highschool to wear uniforms, you are taking away their freedom to express themselves. Many people in the United States express their individuality through the clothes they wear. In forcing these students to wear uniforms, you are therefore telling them that they are not allowed to be individuals.

Also, what would the students do with the hundreds of dollars that we spend on our everyday clothes?!? If you instate the rule that forces students to wear uniforms, all of those clothes that we have purchased will go to waste. The only free time that we would have to wear those clothes is on the weekends. And....i dont know if any of you guys realize this, but school uniforms will be just as expensive, if not more, than regular clothes. And, do you honestly expect people to follow the school dress code just becuase the school says so? No one does now, so what would make them do it then. I could imagine it already, the girls coming in with the britney spears look (which is not a bad thing at all ), and the guys coming in with their shirts hanging out, and their pants sagging down past their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. Us students of today will not be told how to dress.

All in all, School uniforms would just be a students waste of time, as well as money. It takes away their freedom to express their individuality. Also, all of our clothes that we currently posess would go to waste. The current generation of kids is one that is built on self confidence and respect. We will not be told what to do, and especially not be told how to dress. Whether you guys like it or not!!!

Does that mean you'll never wear a uniform when you go for a job? "Freedom of expression" is well and dandy, but you're under a contractual obligation to learn, not socialise, when you go to school.

Ok, ok, enough with the price [COLOR=purple][SIZE=1][FONT=Courier]fight already I think we all realize that no matter what the ruling is people will be unhappy. As for the opinion of another student, I must say I would love to wear uniforms. It would save me at least 15 minutes a day from trying to find somethign to wear. It would be ever so much more convienent. And another thing, about this " freedom of expression" ordeal. People, students especially can find other ways to express themselves. trying to enforce a standered dress code will not take waay from that. Also, it was mentioned that having dress codes will be more costly because kids will still have the "cool clothes" they wear on weekends. But I have to ask you this, What about those kids who can't afford the "cool clothes" ? Where do they get this confidence you talk about? By enforcing a dress code don't you thinkk this may provide a stepping stone into clsoing that gap between polular and loser? i mean, i realize it will be a small stone, maybe a chip you would call it, but progress none the less. Really, this fight could go on forever, but why must it. Wear the stinkin outfits for 18 years and be done with it. Wear whatever you want to the rest of your life.

'WE WILL NOT BE TOLD WHAT TO DO'

Wow, blatant defiance and telling people to basically stick it, that's a good way to prove your mature enough to make your own decisions...

There is no discipline where you come from, apparently, as my school did not tolerate rules violations. My teachers and principals enforced something called a 'rule book'. That's very similar to what we call 'laws' in the real world. An attitude as defiant as yours is not going to get you anywhere, be forewarned. Even if that's how you really feel, and I can respect that, you need to evaluate the way you express those feelings. It would be in your own best interest.

Can you really not find other avenues to express your indivuality? Are there no clubs to join at your school? Have you tried reading and writing poetry or songs or plays or stories? I don't see how putting school uniforms in place strips you of your freedom of speech or pursuit of happiness. If clothing is the only thing that makes you happy, then someone has failed you somewhere along the line...

lots of chinese schools requires students to dress uniforms. it does stop some fashion issue. but other issue arises: students dress their uniforms in alternative ways (like with one sleeve retracted) and decorate them with words, drawing and stick-on pictures. and then peers judge you by the way you wear uniforms and how you decorate (or scissor) them as much as they used to by what you wore.

Hi,

My name is Vickie Crager. I currently live in Texas, am 42 years old, have 2 boys (10 and 12), have a B.S. with a dual major in political science and psychology, have worked in the legal field since 1988 and have founded a national parental rights group (APROD) as a result of my school’s implementation of a standardized dress policy. We came together as a group because we oppose mandatory uniform/standardized dress policies as they teach concepts that are in direct contradiction to what we are teaching our children.

We do not oppose reasonable prohibitive dress codes that prevent inappropriate attire. We are not anarchist opposed to all authority. We are not freaks of society trying to denigrate the morals of our society. We are not the many horrific things that we've been called. Instead, we are just parents who actively participate in and who welcome the responsibility of raising our children. We are fit, competent and well-informed parents who expect our children to act respectfully and appropriately and who are trying to raise self-reliant children within our principled system of beliefs, trying to teach our children to think about the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I know I should go back and read all the post in this thread, but I’ve heard every pro argument for uniforms that has ever been made and I believe it would be a waste of time at this point.

We've prepared a Myths document that provides links to the empirical studies, as well as logical arguments showing the fallacy of the pro-uniform arguments. It can be found at http://www.aprod.org/myths.htm If there is an argument that has not been addressed in this document, let me know and I’ll present my position on it.

I did read, however, the post where someone made the claim that uniforms don’t hurt kids and I would have to state that I respectfully disagree. I do not speak for all parents, only myself, (I do know there are many that feel as I do though) but I have no doubt that forcing them to comply to such a policy will hurt their development. As the person with the ultimate and primary responsibility of raising my children, the decision of whether or not my children should wear a school uniform is my decision to make --- not the government's.

Below is a written statement that one parent is writing to submit. It’s not finished yet and I don’t know how it will transfer from its current format, but I’m going to try.

I look forward to the debate,

Vickie Crager
www.aprod.org


SPAM REMOVED - DEBATE THE ISSUES WITH US; DO NOT USE US AS A BLOG OR PETITION SPOT.

With all due respect, how can I debate the issue with you if you will not let me put forth the reasons I feel that uniforms are harmful to my children?

Vickie

Why would it hurt their development? How would it hurt their development? Children raised with private school educations, and the children in most European schools seem to "develop" well under those conditions.

Edited to add: I don't need a thesis. One paragraph will do. Give me some concrete, succinct reason children are "hurt" by being required to wear a uniform to school.

I believe we have other thing to worry in the schools about then what kids are wearing.

Hello Mrs. Pigpen:

I wish to apologize for not being able to respond in a sound bit as you have requested. It is impossible to do and so I will not frustrate myself attempting to. The answer to your question lies in an entire belief system that is fundamentally unique to me and which would only pertain to those who might hold beliefs similar to mine. I tried to present them, not to force them upon anyone, or to present blog (whatever that is) or spam, but to offer an explanation so that others might have an insight into my beliefs and to show why I feel they are harmful to my children. Does that mean I expected you all to adopt my beliefs as your own? No. I only hoped to show that I, as a parent, have given great thought to this issue and have made a decision based upon what I sincerely believe is in the best interest of my children. It is my intent to show that this is an issue that has to be decided by the individual family, because some may decide that they are beneficial and some may decide that, not only are they a useless restriction, but they are indeed an outright governmental infringement upon our fundamental liberties. Since I don’t know your beliefs, I cannot say, nor am I claiming, that uniforms would be harmful to your children. As I stated, “I do not speak for all parents, only myself…”

However if you accept that I am sincere in my beliefs, then it should be sufficient to say that I sincerely believe that public school uniforms are harmful because they teach and coerce conduct that contradicts with the beliefs and concepts that I am teaching my children.

As for your attempt to compare uniforms in a public school setting with uniforms in a private school setting you can’t, because you will never get around the fact that a public school is an arm of the government. As such they will never be able to do everything that can be done in the private sector. A voluntary, rational choice is at play when someone attends a private school. There can be no coerced violation of beliefs if someone is voluntarily participating.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Vickie

I see where the concept of “freedom of expression” has been touched upon slightly by others. However the topic has not been completely addressed because a couple of important items have been left out.

1st – One’s right to freedom of expression does not give them the right to violate the rights of another (Enter the time and place rule.) Children have a right to an education; while it is not a fundamental right, it is an entitlement granted to them nonetheless. This is why a reasonable prohibitive dress code is permissible because it prohibits that attire which is disruptive, unhealthy and unsafe. The government has an obligation to provide a safe and healthy environment for the children in its care. When it comes to infringing upon a fundamental right however, the government must use the least restrictive means to accomplish its compelling interest. Prohibiting attire that is disruptive, unsafe or unhealthy is a less restrictive means that prescribing specific attire.

2nd – This has not been addressed at all, unless I missed it. Freedom of expression includes not only the ability to express oneself, but it also includes its concomitant counterpart, that being the ability to refrain from expressing something. A uniform represents symbolic speech.

"requiring students to dress alike could send the message that they are all on the same team." http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/polic...des/whynow.html

"Uniforms also send a clear message" http://www.cimagegroup.com/services/

A dress code sends a message that school is a serious place that is serious about learning and that anything that gets in the way of learning, including those $40 jeans purchased at the mall last weekend, needs to be removed. http://www.kypost.com/2002/aug/20/kedit082002.html

Public schools are discovering that uniforms send the message that a school is a workplace. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ion/ed0021.html

If a child, particularly a middle or high school aged child, dresses modestly, he or she sends a clear message. Perhaps the message is that she is not "cool." She is also not a slut. If a young person dresses immodestly, no matter how well-intentioned they or their parents might be, they send a message that their moral standards are commensurate with their clothing standards http://www.catholicherald.com/foss/98ef/ef980820.htm

By mandating uniforms in public schools, without the chance to opt-out, our government is in the position of coercing its citizens to express a message. Once people begin to accept this as the norm, they begin to expect it.

I think you expressed yourself very well without needing to explain your entire belief system.

Perhaps you are right, and enforcing a uniform system on your children would go against the principles you wish to teach them in your home. Might I ask you this...How does that differ from, for example, book banning under the same context? The schools might teach things which go against a parent's belief system, or they might enforce types of conduct which go against a parent's belief system. Wouldn't that also be a coerced violation of beliefs? What if I, for example, believe that my children shouldn't have to wear shoes?

Adults are not required to attend school, and children are. School itself could be considered a violation of the child's fundamental right to liberty, because they do not make the conscious choice to attend, necessarily. They are forced to stand in lines to go to the bathroom and walk as a group. They cannot speak whenever they want or say whatever they want. I don't see why uniforms would be any more of a personal rights violation than any of these other things. School is inherently a system of coerced conduct, of which students are subjected until they reach adulthood, when they have the ability to decide for themselves.

In my opinion, uniforms create a more equitable situation for children. Obviously it isn't a panacea, but it is a step in the right direction.

People/parents who try to ban books are working under the same principle as those who want mandatory uniforms. Not only do they want to exercise control over their own children's development, they want to control all possible exposure that might have an impact on their children by controlling everyone else. For example, people who want to ban a book argue that it should not even be in the library because their children might possibly be exposed to it, and give no thought to another parent's right to allow their child to explore what is in the book. People who want all kids to wear uniforms, let us say for example to control their children's exposure to socioeconomic differences, are only trying to control what their kids are exposed to by controlling everyone else as well, without regard to another parent's rights.

Now let's look at the opposite side of the spectrum, where a parent is just trying to control the education of their own child and not everyone else’s. Does a parent have the right to object to their child reading a specific book? It depends on the situation. You have to determine if there are fundamental beliefs involved and then whether or not it is just an exposure issue or are they actually teaching a concept that contradicts with the parent's values and which requires an act of affirmation. Then you have to look at the compelling governmental interested involved and whether or not it is the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. When it is the least restrictive means the infringement is permissible. Parental rights are not absolute and I'm not claiming that they are. Without having a specific book and such, it is impossible to make a more specific argument.

The book analogy differs a little from the uniform analogy however, because with reading it is really just merely an exposure to a concept and the coerced conduct is merely the act of reading. It would require a separate act of affirmation indicating acceptance to what they were reading as the truth in order for there to be a colorable offense. With the uniform however, the coerced conduct itself results in a required affirmation.

Anyway, with uniforms, does a parent have a right to object to their children being coerced into wearing uniforms? It again depends upon the situation. When fundamental beliefs are involved absolutely, because my family cannot be coerced by the state to act in a manner that contradicts with our fundamental beliefs (not unless they've meet the two prongs of the strict scrutinay standard). Now, a parent can't object and say that their children shouldn't even be exposed to uniforms, but they can object if requiring the uniform is teaching concepts that are contradictory to their fundamental beliefs and, if so, they can then request an accommodation. Once again though we have to come back to the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means test. If there is no other means of attaining the compelling governmental interest, then it is the least restrictive means and an accommodation does not have to be made. There is, however, a less restrictive means available to the government were uniforms are concerned. That is why uniforms won't meet the strict scrutiny standard. A school has a compelling interest in maintaining a safe, healthy and disruptive free environment. However it has the ability to ban attire that is unsafe, unhealthy and materially disruptive, which is a less restrictive means then prescribing specific attire.

The government has a compelling interest in seeing that its citizens are educated. The least restrictive means to attain this goal is to require attendance. If a parent, in directing their child's education, decides to home-school their child or send them to private school, then that parent is in effect granted an accommodation with regard to this compelling governmental interest, because the interest of educating their citizens is still met. I’ve seen where someone in this group described this as a choice. However it can only really be consider a choice when there is a viable choice for all. There will be no accommodation given to parents who cannot afford to send their children to private school for instruction, nor is there any accommodation given to those who cannot home school because they have to work to be able to afford such things as food and shelter. Your other examples would fall under the same category. However if you are asking how I explain it within my own system of beleifs surrounding choice, let me know and I'll provide that as well.


I respectfully disagree. Our goal needs to be that we all treat each other as equals regardless of our differences, be they socioeconomic, cultural, physical, religious etc. Our goal should not be to teach our children that we must learn to hide our differences or somehow change, or worse yet expect others to change to accomodate us, simple so we do not risk offending anyone or being offended by others.

When our founding fathers declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” they were declaring that in the eyes of our government our differences didn’t matter, they were not intending it to be the role of government to make us all equal. The simple fact of the matter is we will never all be equal, because we will never all be the same. Our differences are what make us unique and we should not be ashamed of them, nor should we be taught that it is bad to be different. This is one of the things I see mandatory uniforms doing. Why would anyone want to teach their children that they have to hide the fact that they can’t afford $50 jeans or that they should be ashamed that someone can afford something that they might not be able to? I’m not trying to be disrespectful and say that you are intentionally teaching your children this, but that is what I see when this argument is made. We as parents need to teach our children that those things don’t matter. I know it’s hard in this world of glitz, glamour and gadgets galore, but who said parenting was easy.

Now if a parent looks at my argument and disagrees and decides otherwise that is their right. But as for me, I’m teaching my children that they are just as good and fortunate in their hand-me-downs or off the sale rack as anyone is. I’m teaching them that their self-worth is determined by their inner nature, not external possessions. Once they discover this truth, then they can function happily within whatever situation they may find themselves. I’ve worked along side multi-millionaires and those who were probably one-step from living out of their car, as well as running the full gamut in between. I felt comfortable as myself across the board. That is what I want to teach my children.

I see I’ve gotten long again. Sorry – it just all wants to come pouring out at once.

Vickie

School uniforms is just another way to reduce the individuality of someone. I totally oppose school uniforms. I believe that school uniforms do not reduce school fighting but increase it -- people from rival schools fight with each other. School uniforms are a waste of tax payer money that could be better spent on real educational needs. School uniforms decrease the morale of students -- they're less likely to have a good attitude in school and so they'd be more willing to drop out. School uniforms violate freedom of expression.

I agree with everything you said right up to kids from rival schools fighting each other. I went to a private Christian school and we didn't fight with the Catholic school kids down the street.

I just like to point out that the parents usually purchase school uniforms so there is little if any impact financially to the school district. All school uniforms in my old district, after I graduated, were just really strict dress codes like, Khaki pants and white shirts.

Hello Rev DelFuego,

I see from the information provided next to your post that you are from Texas as well. I’m from Katy, Texas Howdy.

From your post, I gather that you don’t believe that school uniforms have much of a financial impact on the school districts. I would have to respectfully disagree. First, they are required to purchase uniforms for educationally disadvantaged students, second the districts have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating this matter and third they have lost the parental support of parents who oppose such a policy and whom have been summarily dismissed and pushed away by the district. (This last one would of course only apply to those districts refusing to acknowledge the opt-out.)

Let’s first look at the educationally disadvantaged students. While I would agree that a wealthier district might not be directly affected financially, generally speaking your statement is inaccurate. Our state law regarding uniforms reads in pertinent part:

"The rules the board of trustees adopts must designate a source of funding that shall be used in providing uniforms for students at the school who are educationally disadvantaged." http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/ed...ml#ed029.11.162

Any uniform that is not donated has to come from somewhere and the district will have to provide them if they are not donated.

An educationally disadvantaged student is anyone who qualifies for free or reduced lunches. Our state average of educationally disadvantaged students is currently 50.5%. That means that over one/half of the students would qualify if the entire state implemented uniforms. Now, if you actually look at the stats of the individual districts that are implementing them, you will find that such policies are being implemented primarily in the poorer districts. A poorer district equals more educationally disadvantaged students; equals more who would qualify for uniforms; equals more of a financial burden on the district. If you ask most parents in these districts you will find that they merely don’t know that they qualify for assistance.

Next there is the litigation expense involved. Natalia ISD for example has spent approximately $60,000 in legal fees fighting to keep parents from opting out and they keep losing.

“More students exempt from uniforms” http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla...180&xlc=1083174

“Judge sides with father on Natalia uniforms” [View the full-text article, 577 words]

Now what’s interesting is that Natalia ISD has about 1,200 kids and last I heard they were facing an upcoming $300,000 deficit. They spent 20% of that deficit fighting the parents of 0.25% of their student body from getting their legally permissible opt-outs. They are considered a property-poor district. Accordingly, this means that the property rich districts in Texas are indeed paying for this litigation and are thus bearing the financial burden of school uniforms as well.

Pearland ISD has spent around $40,000; Alvin ISD has spent $16,000 on 1 case and I don’t know about the other; I don’t have the exact figures for the others either, but West-Columbia Brazoria, Pasadena, Crandall, and Forney, have all litigated this before TEA and I’m sure that the costs are comparable.

Finally there is impact as a result of the loss of parental support. When my sons’ school first implemented school uniforms and I started researching them and found out how they manipulated numbers and people and, as such, they lost my support. I was supposed to be a partner in the education of my children not just someone there to support their fundraising efforts. I was eventually given the opt-out, but after everything that happened I no longer trusted them. When our district redrew the school boundaries, we ended up being transferred into a new school. It didn’t utilize uniforms and the schools were so different. The one was like a prison where no one dared talk or act like a kid. The new was a magical place of discovery. Yet still, after dealing with the other school, I don’t open up like I did when my son first started school.

Instead of helping with the class science project and all like I did when my son was in Kindergarten, I now spend my time helping other parents like the one who wrote and told me about their National Honor Society senior student who had a full ride scholarship waiting for her when she graduated, but who lost it because she received a disciplinary action for a forgotten belt; or the one from the parent whose son has already been suspended twice (3 days for the 1st time – 5 days for the 2nd time) because his shirt became untucked and now he’s in danger of automatically failing due to excessive absences if he misses more than 2 days the rest of the year; or the note from the parent of an elementary school aged girl whose principal thrust her hand down the little girl’s pants to see what they were made of and then declared that the little girl was inappropriately dressed because the pants had 4% spandex in them; or the many notes from parents of honor students who’ve never before been in trouble who are all of the sudden receiving their first, and often thereafter repeated, disciplinary action because of a shirt that has a small stripe or pants that aren’t quite the right shade or have faded; or kids suddenly being told they are unworthy of an education with other children and being isolated in in-school suspension for not being able to afford those specific items that the school has prescribed as acceptable attire, when in fact what the children were given by the local charity was perfectly acceptable attire in our society; the notes about principles and teachers cornering kids in the halls with pliers and scissors cutting off little labels and pulling any rivets that they might see; the notes about children being made to feel that they are somehow wrong for wanting to wear some color other then the prescribed and mandated color; the notes about children being made to believe that if they are less then perfect on the outside that they are somehow unworthy members of our society; the oh so many notes that I receive.

The cost to our society is great and it is much more than just financial. But I will leave that debate for another day. Now I'm going to go read to with my kids.

Vickie

There may be some kids in the school that is requiring School Uniforms who do not want uniforms and those kids may be troublesome enough to start a rebellion against the school uniform dress code by wearing street clothes anyway. He might get suspended for doing so. The action that one student made may lead to an even larger uprising...say a total of 200 kids in the school will be in the uprising. What will the school do then? Suspend all of those kids?

You know I understand where your coming from with people rebelling against school uniforms but as a student I don't think it would be much of a problem. I personally would like school uniforms. I get sick of people judging others for how they look. It really does make a difference. The society we live in today will never get rid of the troublemakers. I don't think getting them suspended would be a solution to rebellion though... I personally know that people who care about it enough to fight it will not care if it means getting disciplined. Thats why school have many different outfits, so that the students get a small choice.

I have to tell you, I think that things like this are going a bit TOO far ascribing some pretty severe and dire consequences to a person's manner of dress.
Quoting ANY sort of philosophical or historical document and linking it to the "deep" issues of self-awareness and freedom as pertains to your slacks and shirt is further than anyone should go for an argument...

Aprod, I am completely guessing here but let me go for it, are you the parent of a special needs student? I ask because you seem to use a lot of the language of an IEP under IDEA when you talk about education. If you are then I would suggest to you that your situation is entirely different from most other parents. Special needs student often respond less well to changes such as schedule changes, dress code changes, and other things that might not phase a regular ed. student...

That aside I think people are going WAY overboard on the issues of freedom, expression, and "saving their childhood". In case you didn't know, high school "kids" are children ONLY by your definition. They are, according to national surveys (and my experience as a high school teacher) MOSTLY sexually active, drinking, doing all forms of drugs, engaging in serious, long term relationships, having children, working jobs, and worrying about their futures.
If they share their parents skewed understanding of the freedoms owed to them under our Constitution it is because their parents are just as confused. The founding fathers NEVER intended materialism as one of those unalienable rights.

High school "kids" spend MOST of their energy and time in school socializing. It is part of going through adolescence that young adults will constantly test their social skills in order to determine their status, their ability to gain status, and their level of acceptance. When I walk into a classroom EVERY DAY male students look down at me first in order to check out my shoes. I have had kids tell me where I bought my shirts, how much they cost, and whether or not they were "in" anymore. The beast of consumerism has a hold on schools across this country and it is only getting more firm as parents defend their kids rights to look like Britney Spears.(it is NOT an exaggeration, that's how many girls dress) My sister can't even buy clothes for her seven year old daughter because all of the fashions for that age group are too revealing! Pardon her for not wanting to show her daughters mid-riff....

We NEED uniforms in schools because people take themselves and others more seriously when they are well dressed. I ask of the dress code nay-sayers out there, Would you let your children wear their birkenstocks and tie-dyes to their grandparents' funerals?? Can they wear them to Confirmation or To family pictures or would you have them wear "whatever they please" to their first job interview?? Why not?? Well because those are situations that require more seriousness, more refinement, etiquette maybe? Why then, does school require less seriousness? Your children aren't going to school to blossom in their childhood. They are supposed to do that at home, with their families. They go to school to become effective, useful citizens of this nation and to make a future for themselves. If you don't feel that your children have "found themselves" then that is an issue with you and your family. They will not find themselves, create a unique identity, or have any existential awakenings due to their attire.

Children need to learn how to conform to a society as much as they need to create an identity apart from it. Both are equally important. I think that asking a school to teach each child to find their inner, unique self and to let each of them express themselves freely is a ridiculous notion. It is positively absurd. Do you want to know what they will say? Here is what they say to me every day:
1. My parents suck. (even the children of the nicest parents I know say this but they DO know the difference when it comes down to it)

2. I hate school and teachers suck. Except Mr./Mrs. so and so who is really cool..

4. School is boring. (because teachers can't flash at 150 frames per second like their favorite TV shows, movies, and videos)

3. I REALLY want to hook up with <insert popular kid's name here>

That is what they are thinking about. Now that you know is it ok for them to have their true voices repressed by some cotton the school board chose?
I hate to always be the one to pop the bubbles of people who think schools function like Disney "after school" films or Malcolm in the Middle but someone has to. If you have a good kid you STILL aren't hearing about what is really going on inside their school either because they don't know or don't want to alarm you. If you have a "not so good" kid (that was me