We want teachers to be teaching and not having to waste time measuring a girl’s shirt or making a girl feel uncomfortable,” Shultz said.
Good because policing what girls wear stems from this fucked idea that boys have no sexual self control or responsibility for same and that women thus have to take responsibility for it via modesty.
So with those idiotic notions, rape victims get blamed for appearance, consent doesn’t enter the conversation, rapey boys are “boys being boys”, and similar awful shit.
For added context, Shultz is the school board president here. The stunt didn’t change the vote and the new policy that was being protested is the same as other schools in the area that didn’t have any problems regarding dressing.
Point of school is learning, yes. And fashion and looking good is also a part of learning, and expressing yourself, and attracting like minded individuals to build friendships, etc.
Boys should be taught to control themselves if someone nearby is “distracting”, hey another thing they can learn at school. Teach kids how to be adults, not just algebra.
The point is not about expressing yourself or looking good. Those are definitely positives.
The point is about dressing distractingly. Say for example the man in the picture takes class for you, are you telling me his outfit won’t be distracting for you ?
It is distracting because it is out of place for where it is worn, school. This man could come like this for a party and he would be a hit.
The same applies for students, be it from any gender.
The counter argument I always see is “boys should be taught to control”. While this is true and a certain amount of decency is expected from everyone even if they find someone attractive who is dressed non distractingly, the other side of the coin is that someone who is dressed inappropriately to the place (school) could distract “boys” even if they don’t find the person attractive. This it is definitely the problem of the outfit.
In short the problem is the “everything goes” attitude
Eg,
Imagine this anywhere else “I was driving, I saw someone wearing something showy, and I killed a pedestrian. I can’t believe that lady was dressed hot, they made me kill a pedestrian.” Does that seem right? No. Still the fault of the person looking.
Because outside world you are free to be who you want to be. But in the school you are meant to study and there is a decorum. Very similar to a library, you cannot speak in a library because it is distracting.
I have to be clear here, the problem lies in the subjectivity that “what is appropriate”. To solve this we have uniforms. And If there is a better solution I’m in for that.
But as I stated before, one should not be one sided in their thought about this problem. Not everything can be dumped on the “boys should learn” phrase.
While boys should definitely learn, the outfit also should fit the decorum.
I did but my problem is I, as many other think school should be prepare kids and young adults for life.
And if school is meant to prepare you for adult life, it should somewhat emulate adult life in a safe setting. In which case talking about life outside is relevant.
Alternatively you’re advocating for school to be more like prison lite where we can take control away from kids and young adults. Where they can’t decide for themselves what to wear and they need to be protected from their uges because we think they should be considered guilty before they do anything because we think they can’t resist and we refuse to teach them.
If governments around the world can consider 16 old enough to enlist and learn how to use and be responsible for a firearm then schools should consider that age old enough and responsible enough to act appropriately around women no matter how they are dressed.
School is a prison and pretending that it’s a bridge to the real world is not only naive it is counterproductive.
The reason there are uniforms in prison is because there are some dangerous mofos with poor control in there. Kinda like in school. The uniforms decrease the energy level of the place.
Not sure why we’d put the responsibility of learning self control on children while adults are treated as the creatures of limited self control they are.
A homeless man’s a product of his environment but a fourteen year old boy who can’t concentrate on calculus because titties are bouncing in his face all day is responsible for suppressing his own sexuality in service to the mission. Is that about right?
Adults are children and children are adults? Is that pretty much the rubric here?
School shouldn’t be like prison and neither should prison tbh.
Prison is designed as a punishment, its pretty problematic to want children to go through a similar system in their formative years, nevermimd that there is so much evidence that prison doesn’t even work and just causes worse outcomes.
Treat someone like a criminal they will act like a criminal.
Lol, you immediately took the thought to the extremes. How can what I said be remotely prison like 😂
School is obviously meant to prepare one for adult life. As an adult you can’t be publicly indecent, so can you not be at school.
Also, I agree everyone should act appropriately around everyone no matter how they are dressed.
I didn’t understand what you meant by the firearm licence, but just so you know it is at least 18-21 minimum age with necessary courses and qualifications, around the world.
It’s not really the extremes, it’s exactly what you were calling for. You called for uniforms which is taking agency away from young people and you said that it is the duty of schools to protect (I assume only the male) students from distractions which involves punishing the girls and assuming the boys are guaranteed to be guilty of this crime of distraction.
Not gun lisences, im talking about joiming the military. A lot of countries have 16 or younger as enlisting age as well as children younger than that in cadets organisations.
Should we take it to extremes and have everyone wear a sheet with two holes for eyes so nobody is “distracted”? Otherwise how do you know that something won’t be distracting? Oh no, one kid is wearing a somewhat shiny watch–distraction imminent! Doom!
By the time kids hit high school, they’re capable of not being distracted by others’ attire and on occasion if they are, there’s fortunately a teacher there to remind them to focus.
I recall being distracted a few times but I also didn’t want to get in trouble or, you know, fail. And I have ADHD that wasn’t diagnosed at the time. If someone is so easily distracted many schools will help the kid out (not like when I was growing up).
For example, my kid was distracted by noise when younger so she wore sound cancelling headphones. Now she can focus well enough without them.
Nobody is advocating for “anything goes.” Some guidelines around basic decency are fine if it applies equally to boys and girls.
In short the problem is the “everything goes” attitude
Who is promoting an “everything goes” attitude? Was the school proposing to have no dress code at all? What specific suggested change in the dress code is the issue here?
This whole “we can’t let students come to class on their underwear” argument doesn’t hold any water if the new rules wouldn’t allow it either.
While they don’t specify the new rules, there are a few clues in the arguments made to defend it:
Teachers shouldn’t be measuring clothing. This implies the new rules are not based on any kind of measurement
That leaves binary states of whether X body part is covered
The article states that exposing the midriff is among the newly-allowed items
They also argue for leaving it to the parents to decide what’s appropriate. This actually seems to imply the new rule is “anything goes [so far as school enforcement is concerned]”
Except anything can be distracting and there’s a certainly a reason why the school girl outfit has so many sexy versions and lingerie. School uniforms are a terrible idea for many reasons. You generally can’t buy then second hand, low income families now need two sets of clothing for their kids, and it is possible to buy “higher quality” ones from places like Macy’s.
On the other hand if there’s enough open market that you can buy them at Macy’s, there’s no reason you’d be any less able to buy second-hand uniforms than any other clothing.
So the options are:
You have to buy them from the school. That sucks.
They’re provided by the school. Now the poor kids are actually equal to the richer kids.
You can buy anything that adheres to the right dress code, and that’s your “uniform”. In this case there’s nothing stopping them from buying them second hand.
The only failure mode then is when you have to buy them from the school, at which point poor families are more put upon … assuming the uniforms are more expensive than other clothes. But it’s the same with textbooks, sports equipment, etc.
You’re being downvoted because questions that might lead to a person changing their mind, if they honestly engaged with the question, are considered mind tricks by some people.
“Oh the earth is flat? Why do you suppose you’ve never seen a picture of the edge then?”
A uniform doesn’t stop that through, someone who is distracted by girls will continue to be distracted by girls no matter what they are wearing. Same goes for the other way around.
Right on man. Yeah most folks get a little distracted but keep it together.
For me, History class, the prettiest girl in the school and one of the sweetest. Green eyes like emeralds. Could’ve just started at her all day but she sat behind in the row over so it would’ve been kinda obvious lol. Also I wanted to pass lol. I still remember her from time to time.
Yes we wore kilts to protest and the. A few years later they did the same thing woth walk outside and. A heat wave putting finals in a 100 degree weather and they changed it.
Yes and teacher effort is a limited resource which is why these rules should be considered based on their simplicity. A dress code is simpler than anti-bullying rules to enforce.
Who purchases the uniforms? You mentioned impoverished kids being made fun of, but the parents have to buy the expensive, overinflated uniforms as well. Wouldn’t that put more strain on less well off families, having to buy specific clothes for their child’s attendance, each year for each child?
I’m generally not in favor of uniforms, but this argument really goes both ways: who purchases (potentially very expensive brand) clothes in a school setting where the expectation is that kids constantly wear nice, new clothes to school? Even assuming that bullying or mobbing based on clothes isn’t an issue, the cost to keep buying outfits could easily be higher than the cost of uniforms.
That said, I’ve known problematic settings only by proxy. At my school, nobody gave a fuck about what students were wearing, there was no dress code, and I would have absolutely hated being forced to wear a uniform.
But that is just regulation for regulations sake. Since you can buy the cheap walmart stuff or an expensive italian designer - it really does not fulfill the only supposed benefit of stopping bullying.
The parents do. We have to purchase school supplies and get nickeled and dimed for PTO stuff and field trips plus the school lunches.
Imagine if we expected soldiers to buy their rifle, pay for their meals, pay for their uniforms, imagine the outcry about troop readiness. Why do we tolerate it with education?
It’s sorta the same but not, the government knows the money is there they are just doing funny accounting. When the school sends me a notice that one of my kids needs something they have no idea what my financial situation is. This matters. Soldiers can concentrate on learning how to do their thing, students are distracted by demands to figure out how to buy something.
Dude if you’re a parent with a friend group of other parents in your school district, there will absolutely be hand-me-downs going all over the damn place.
My kids have so many clothes that they’ve never worn because we just keep passing clothes around, between their friends and cousins, everyone is growing so fast, it’s foolish to be spending a ton of money on brand new clothes unless we need something for a specific special occasion.
I’m sure school uniforms, as long as they are consistent, would be swapped around. I’m sure there would be parent groups forming on Nextdoor and Facebook to swap clothes. And I’m sure they would show up at the thrift stores.
Secondhand uniforms would not be a problem.
But honestly the most important part is that schools don’t treat it as a fundraiser. They should be able to buy in bulk and coordinate with neighboring districts on selection to maximize discounts, and sell at slightly above cost in order to offset free/reduced cost outfits for low income families.
In other words, in theory, it should be less expensive to dress your kids in school uniform.
Personally I think uniforms solve a lot more problems than they cause. They sacrifice a bit of self-expression (at least the older kids, who mostly dress and style themselves), but at the same time, it takes a big hit out of financial inequality bullying. Combined with universal lunch programs it basically destroys it.
That in itself is worth it. Kids getting bullied (or feeling empowered, for that matter) for things 100% out of their control (like the caste they’re born into) shouldn’t be a thing.
Fine you have convinced me. I expect you to send meoney to pay for my kids uniform. Money order or cash since you don’t seem like a person of your word.
Hey here is an idea. School uniform companies should make it so they have to change it every year like textbook makers do. All it will take to convince the school is telling them that the old uniforms were end-of-lifed and a campaign donation to the school board reps. Parents will be offered a 5% discount if they mail back their old clothing. The clothing will interlock together so you can’t mix last year’s shirt with this year’s pants without it being super noticeable. Which will kill the secondary market.
CaaS, clothing as a service. You will own nothing and be happy.
Brb getting turtleneck on, because I am a visionary now.
A way to divert money from public sector to scumbags in private sector who won’t follow any of the government regulations or take underperforming students.
Private schools can fire someone for being LGBT, public schools can’t. Private schools can share private medical information with parents (like being LGBT) or seeking birth control, public can’t except under very regulated conditions. Private schools can get out of teaching evolution and sex ed, public schools can’t. The list goes on and on. Public funding of private schools breaks a century of progress. We are going to see a brave new world with football couches and school admins making millions while teachers are making daycare worker salaries teaching from books based on a prot understanding of the bible.
What you said sounded wrong, so I asked the AI about it. I know the AI is wrong sometimes, but doesn’t this seem more like the truth than what you said about private schools firing people for being LGBT?
In the United States, federal law protects employees from discrimination based on their sexuality. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2020 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, also covers sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, it is illegal to fire someone for being gay.
If you are going to a private school, it’s kinda implied money isn’t a huge issue anyways. Your parents are paying for you to attend this exclusive school, after all.
But you can’t take Johnson Academy’s uniform to Brentwood. So, if Brentwood isn’t having a sale, what then?
Ed choice has enabled many kids to attend private schools.
Kids grow and their uniforms don’t fit, giving them to the school to resell as a fundraiser or giving them directly to other students is common. On top of that most private schools do not have embroidered cressents on their uniforms so they can be used interchangeably. Private schools are different than what you see on TV.
Poor kids still need clothes. But if you have a uniform you only need a few shirts and pants and they are all the same so no.one will know if you only have three sets of the uniform.
If you need to wear a different outfit every day to.school you would need at least five completely different outfits and to be oerfectly honest at least 10 so you wouldn’t repeat often enough for people to notice younare wearing the same outfits all the time.
Uniforms actually reduce costs for.poor students and reduce bullying.
But of course run your mouth with nonsense cause it sounds smart.
I was one of those poor kids, so I remember being price gouged every year when I no longer fit my clothing. I also remember switching to a school that didn’t, and suddenly it was less expensive because, unlike your implication, I didn’t run around naked outside of my uniform when not in school, and wore the same clothing in and out. I also remember doing research and citing sources for my claims, which you seem to be short on. Maybe it’s because you’re not wearing your uniform right now? Can you provide a source for any of your claims?
not agreeing. i would want to wear my clothes. just casual, nothing gucci or else. the school should offer uniforms but without forcing studemts to wear it. something like an advertisement.
The whole point of removing the choice is to remove the signals that the choices send. Making the uniform an option goes against the definition of “uniform”.
One option. Everyone the same. That’s what “uniform” means.
It won’t be clothing can just get at Walmart, is practical, and comfortable. It will be polyester Landsend shit that is too expensive, rips easily, takes weeks to get there, and feels like steel wool on your skin. Meanwhile teachers and admins will continue to wear what they want.
It won’t promote equality since the poor kids will just have ripped up stuff and the rich kids will load up on the accessories
Fucking deal with it. You should be able to handle not having the best clothing in life. I did.
My school tried a uniform for a few years and I have never once forgave them for that. I won’t allow my kids to be punished the same way. Also someone found their old uniform in the attic many years later, shredded it with a knife, and mailed it to their former principal with a note that told them that’s what I think of your messed up uniform policy you forced on us.
You aren’t well informed and just are going off your own personal experience.
I worked for a school district that implemented school uniforms after a kid attempted suicide for bullying.
The dress code required polo shirts from multiple companies including target, Walmart, Costco house brands and slacks or black jeans with no rips. Bullying drastically dropped across schools in the district (there were 9 schools)
You’re getting down voted but as someone who had exactly 3 shirts and 2 pair of shorts in high school, I would have vastly preferred a uniform mandate. My mom had enough money she just didn’t see extra clothes as a necessary expense for her. She would have been forced to get the uniforms and I would have had an easier time in high school.
People are also saying that’s an unnecessary expense for the poor people, but why can the school afford the building, the teachers, administration, etc, but not 5 pairs of clothes for the students? Maybe even for need based students?
Good because policing what girls wear stems from this fucked idea that boys have no sexual self control or responsibility for same and that women thus have to take responsibility for it via modesty.
So with those idiotic notions, rape victims get blamed for appearance, consent doesn’t enter the conversation, rapey boys are “boys being boys”, and similar awful shit.
For added context, Shultz is the school board president here. The stunt didn’t change the vote and the new policy that was being protested is the same as other schools in the area that didn’t have any problems regarding dressing.
Holy shit 😳 how did I miss that??
I’m glad his ridiculous antics failed.
His “ridiculous antics” consisted of complying with the proposed new rule.
What’s so ridiculous about that? Why consider it “antics”? Why did the other board member refer to him “taking off his clothes”?
yeah wtf that makes no sense
Not really no.
It comes from being distracting.
The point of school is learning, not fashion, not looking good.
Honestly this is why school uniforms are such a good idea. Cuts out the ambiguity of a dress code.
Point of school is learning, yes. And fashion and looking good is also a part of learning, and expressing yourself, and attracting like minded individuals to build friendships, etc.
Boys should be taught to control themselves if someone nearby is “distracting”, hey another thing they can learn at school. Teach kids how to be adults, not just algebra.
deleted by creator
The point is not about expressing yourself or looking good. Those are definitely positives.
The point is about dressing distractingly. Say for example the man in the picture takes class for you, are you telling me his outfit won’t be distracting for you ?
It is distracting because it is out of place for where it is worn, school. This man could come like this for a party and he would be a hit.
The same applies for students, be it from any gender.
The counter argument I always see is “boys should be taught to control”. While this is true and a certain amount of decency is expected from everyone even if they find someone attractive who is dressed non distractingly, the other side of the coin is that someone who is dressed inappropriately to the place (school) could distract “boys” even if they don’t find the person attractive. This it is definitely the problem of the outfit.
In short the problem is the “everything goes” attitude
What happens outside of school when boys are faced with a much more relaxed dress code, you still going to victim blame and blame the outfit?
Eg, Imagine this anywhere else “I was driving, I saw someone wearing something showy, and I killed a pedestrian. I can’t believe that lady was dressed hot, they made me kill a pedestrian.” Does that seem right? No. Still the fault of the person looking.
Completely agree. The post is about the school dress code though.
And why is it any different?
Because outside world you are free to be who you want to be. But in the school you are meant to study and there is a decorum. Very similar to a library, you cannot speak in a library because it is distracting.
I have to be clear here, the problem lies in the subjectivity that “what is appropriate”. To solve this we have uniforms. And If there is a better solution I’m in for that.
But as I stated before, one should not be one sided in their thought about this problem. Not everything can be dumped on the “boys should learn” phrase.
While boys should definitely learn, the outfit also should fit the decorum.
I imagine the boys could just leave if they don’t feel comfortable, and aren’t — as they are in school — forced to be present.
Not sure if you really read my comment. I was talking ONLY in the context of school, which the post is about.
What happens outside school is a different conversation. Much more general in fact. We’d probably on the same page in that conv I believe.
I did but my problem is I, as many other think school should be prepare kids and young adults for life.
And if school is meant to prepare you for adult life, it should somewhat emulate adult life in a safe setting. In which case talking about life outside is relevant.
Alternatively you’re advocating for school to be more like prison lite where we can take control away from kids and young adults. Where they can’t decide for themselves what to wear and they need to be protected from their uges because we think they should be considered guilty before they do anything because we think they can’t resist and we refuse to teach them.
If governments around the world can consider 16 old enough to enlist and learn how to use and be responsible for a firearm then schools should consider that age old enough and responsible enough to act appropriately around women no matter how they are dressed.
School is a prison and pretending that it’s a bridge to the real world is not only naive it is counterproductive.
The reason there are uniforms in prison is because there are some dangerous mofos with poor control in there. Kinda like in school. The uniforms decrease the energy level of the place.
Not sure why we’d put the responsibility of learning self control on children while adults are treated as the creatures of limited self control they are.
A homeless man’s a product of his environment but a fourteen year old boy who can’t concentrate on calculus because titties are bouncing in his face all day is responsible for suppressing his own sexuality in service to the mission. Is that about right?
Adults are children and children are adults? Is that pretty much the rubric here?
Should be called intensely_inhumane 🤣
School shouldn’t be like prison and neither should prison tbh.
Prison is designed as a punishment, its pretty problematic to want children to go through a similar system in their formative years, nevermimd that there is so much evidence that prison doesn’t even work and just causes worse outcomes.
Treat someone like a criminal they will act like a criminal.
Lol, you immediately took the thought to the extremes. How can what I said be remotely prison like 😂
School is obviously meant to prepare one for adult life. As an adult you can’t be publicly indecent, so can you not be at school.
Also, I agree everyone should act appropriately around everyone no matter how they are dressed.
I didn’t understand what you meant by the firearm licence, but just so you know it is at least 18-21 minimum age with necessary courses and qualifications, around the world.
It’s not really the extremes, it’s exactly what you were calling for. You called for uniforms which is taking agency away from young people and you said that it is the duty of schools to protect (I assume only the male) students from distractions which involves punishing the girls and assuming the boys are guaranteed to be guilty of this crime of distraction.
Not gun lisences, im talking about joiming the military. A lot of countries have 16 or younger as enlisting age as well as children younger than that in cadets organisations.
Should we take it to extremes and have everyone wear a sheet with two holes for eyes so nobody is “distracted”? Otherwise how do you know that something won’t be distracting? Oh no, one kid is wearing a somewhat shiny watch–distraction imminent! Doom!
By the time kids hit high school, they’re capable of not being distracted by others’ attire and on occasion if they are, there’s fortunately a teacher there to remind them to focus.
I recall being distracted a few times but I also didn’t want to get in trouble or, you know, fail. And I have ADHD that wasn’t diagnosed at the time. If someone is so easily distracted many schools will help the kid out (not like when I was growing up).
For example, my kid was distracted by noise when younger so she wore sound cancelling headphones. Now she can focus well enough without them.
Nobody is advocating for “anything goes.” Some guidelines around basic decency are fine if it applies equally to boys and girls.
Did they also have rules about noise levels? Like were other kids allowed to sing and shout at her while she took tests?
Yes they had rules. The distraction was from normal noise levels.
Who is promoting an “everything goes” attitude? Was the school proposing to have no dress code at all? What specific suggested change in the dress code is the issue here?
This whole “we can’t let students come to class on their underwear” argument doesn’t hold any water if the new rules wouldn’t allow it either.
While they don’t specify the new rules, there are a few clues in the arguments made to defend it:
Except anything can be distracting and there’s a certainly a reason why the school girl outfit has so many sexy versions and lingerie. School uniforms are a terrible idea for many reasons. You generally can’t buy then second hand, low income families now need two sets of clothing for their kids, and it is possible to buy “higher quality” ones from places like Macy’s.
Obviously the schools should provide them.
On the other hand if there’s enough open market that you can buy them at Macy’s, there’s no reason you’d be any less able to buy second-hand uniforms than any other clothing.
So the options are:
The only failure mode then is when you have to buy them from the school, at which point poor families are more put upon … assuming the uniforms are more expensive than other clothes. But it’s the same with textbooks, sports equipment, etc.
What do you think would be a sensible dress code? Or would you say that all dress codes are bad?
I’m just curious. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
You’re being downvoted because questions that might lead to a person changing their mind, if they honestly engaged with the question, are considered mind tricks by some people.
“Oh the earth is flat? Why do you suppose you’ve never seen a picture of the edge then?”
“Your jedi mind tricks won’t work on me!”
I tell you what would REALLY help me not get distracted at school, if the girls had to wear burqas.
Then us fellas don’t need to worry about learning self control or mental discipline. It’s win win! By which I mean, two wins for men.
If burkas were worn by everyone they’d be way less of an issue.
I only agree with you because I could stare at the ass of a girl I used to have in my class all day. And I know for a fact I wasn’t the only one.
Uffff but yhe that’s still my fault and my bad, I shouldn’t be asking her to wear more clothes so I can focus
A uniform doesn’t stop that through, someone who is distracted by girls will continue to be distracted by girls no matter what they are wearing. Same goes for the other way around.
And you failed as a result?
If so, or if not, was that due to the ass or you?
Naaah I’m fine homie I’m in uni rn, but still deam that was an ass
Right on man. Yeah most folks get a little distracted but keep it together.
For me, History class, the prettiest girl in the school and one of the sweetest. Green eyes like emeralds. Could’ve just started at her all day but she sat behind in the row over so it would’ve been kinda obvious lol. Also I wanted to pass lol. I still remember her from time to time.
Best wishes in school.
I went to a public high school where boys had to wear long pants all year round. We didn’t have air conditioners. Meanwhile girls would wear skirts.
So stop woth the sexism.
Public schools should just have uniforms of a polo shirt and slacks , shorts or knee high skirts and that is it.
It will help also woth poor kids not having to be made fun of when some people come in with Gucci purses amd expensive shit.
Sounds like the dress code hurts boys as well. The solution is still to reform.
I’ve heard of male students wearing skirts in protest and that normally works with the Puritan school administrators.
Yes we wore kilts to protest and the. A few years later they did the same thing woth walk outside and. A heat wave putting finals in a 100 degree weather and they changed it.
Uniforms is what works. It prevents bullying
I’m having a hard time parsing out your liberal interpretation of grammar.
So does actually enforcing anti-bullying laws, but that would take effort by the teachers.
Yes and teacher effort is a limited resource which is why these rules should be considered based on their simplicity. A dress code is simpler than anti-bullying rules to enforce.
Children and teenagers can’t be watched 24/7 and with larger class sizes it’s very hard to catch all bullying.
But you already know thay.
I’ve had it happen repeatedly in plain view of the teacher during class. But I guess you never experienced that. Must be nice.
You shouldn’t assume what others have gone through. You just look like an ass when you do
Who purchases the uniforms? You mentioned impoverished kids being made fun of, but the parents have to buy the expensive, overinflated uniforms as well. Wouldn’t that put more strain on less well off families, having to buy specific clothes for their child’s attendance, each year for each child?
I’m generally not in favor of uniforms, but this argument really goes both ways: who purchases (potentially very expensive brand) clothes in a school setting where the expectation is that kids constantly wear nice, new clothes to school? Even assuming that bullying or mobbing based on clothes isn’t an issue, the cost to keep buying outfits could easily be higher than the cost of uniforms.
That said, I’ve known problematic settings only by proxy. At my school, nobody gave a fuck about what students were wearing, there was no dress code, and I would have absolutely hated being forced to wear a uniform.
deleted by creator
But that is just regulation for regulations sake. Since you can buy the cheap walmart stuff or an expensive italian designer - it really does not fulfill the only supposed benefit of stopping bullying.
No. It was just single colored shirt and pants. We got wal mart shirts for the dress code. They’ll still fuck with you for your shoes.
Yeah, kids will bully other kids no matter what. It doesn’t matter what the rules allow to be worn.
Well I guess we won’t know for sure until we see some data.
The parents do. We have to purchase school supplies and get nickeled and dimed for PTO stuff and field trips plus the school lunches.
Imagine if we expected soldiers to buy their rifle, pay for their meals, pay for their uniforms, imagine the outcry about troop readiness. Why do we tolerate it with education?
Crazily enough we do to some extent. They issue you a bunch of stuff in boot camp. It comes out of your pay.
It’s sorta the same but not, the government knows the money is there they are just doing funny accounting. When the school sends me a notice that one of my kids needs something they have no idea what my financial situation is. This matters. Soldiers can concentrate on learning how to do their thing, students are distracted by demands to figure out how to buy something.
I disagree completely. Uniforms have been proven to not help with anything they claim to. For one, they generally can’t be bought second hand.
Dude if you’re a parent with a friend group of other parents in your school district, there will absolutely be hand-me-downs going all over the damn place.
My kids have so many clothes that they’ve never worn because we just keep passing clothes around, between their friends and cousins, everyone is growing so fast, it’s foolish to be spending a ton of money on brand new clothes unless we need something for a specific special occasion.
I’m sure school uniforms, as long as they are consistent, would be swapped around. I’m sure there would be parent groups forming on Nextdoor and Facebook to swap clothes. And I’m sure they would show up at the thrift stores.
Secondhand uniforms would not be a problem.
But honestly the most important part is that schools don’t treat it as a fundraiser. They should be able to buy in bulk and coordinate with neighboring districts on selection to maximize discounts, and sell at slightly above cost in order to offset free/reduced cost outfits for low income families.
In other words, in theory, it should be less expensive to dress your kids in school uniform.
Personally I think uniforms solve a lot more problems than they cause. They sacrifice a bit of self-expression (at least the older kids, who mostly dress and style themselves), but at the same time, it takes a big hit out of financial inequality bullying. Combined with universal lunch programs it basically destroys it.
That in itself is worth it. Kids getting bullied (or feeling empowered, for that matter) for things 100% out of their control (like the caste they’re born into) shouldn’t be a thing.
Fine you have convinced me. I expect you to send meoney to pay for my kids uniform. Money order or cash since you don’t seem like a person of your word.
I’m sorry what evidence have you seen this person isn’t true to their word?
Their lying.
Private schools have used uniform sales, buying second hand is not a problem.
Private schools are not public schools. Impoverished cannot afford private schools. And Uniforms are not interchangeable.
Hey here is an idea. School uniform companies should make it so they have to change it every year like textbook makers do. All it will take to convince the school is telling them that the old uniforms were end-of-lifed and a campaign donation to the school board reps. Parents will be offered a 5% discount if they mail back their old clothing. The clothing will interlock together so you can’t mix last year’s shirt with this year’s pants without it being super noticeable. Which will kill the secondary market.
CaaS, clothing as a service. You will own nothing and be happy.
Brb getting turtleneck on, because I am a visionary now.
You. I like you.
Here have some stock in my 80 billion dollar startup. We haven’t made any money yet but we have plenty of venture capital.
What do you think about data mining our customers and selling that information?
enshitfication is speedy now a days
Ed choice has enabled many kids to attend private schools, tutition is actually less than the cost per pupil that that public schools cost.
Wtf is Ed choice. Oh. another ‘only American’/scholarship-rewarding-elites thing again. You’re using ‘many’ very liberally.
A way to divert money from public sector to scumbags in private sector who won’t follow any of the government regulations or take underperforming students.
Private schools can fire someone for being LGBT, public schools can’t. Private schools can share private medical information with parents (like being LGBT) or seeking birth control, public can’t except under very regulated conditions. Private schools can get out of teaching evolution and sex ed, public schools can’t. The list goes on and on. Public funding of private schools breaks a century of progress. We are going to see a brave new world with football couches and school admins making millions while teachers are making daycare worker salaries teaching from books based on a prot understanding of the bible.
What you said sounded wrong, so I asked the AI about it. I know the AI is wrong sometimes, but doesn’t this seem more like the truth than what you said about private schools firing people for being LGBT?
If you are going to a private school, it’s kinda implied money isn’t a huge issue anyways. Your parents are paying for you to attend this exclusive school, after all.
But you can’t take Johnson Academy’s uniform to Brentwood. So, if Brentwood isn’t having a sale, what then?
Ed choice has enabled many kids to attend private schools.
Kids grow and their uniforms don’t fit, giving them to the school to resell as a fundraiser or giving them directly to other students is common. On top of that most private schools do not have embroidered cressents on their uniforms so they can be used interchangeably. Private schools are different than what you see on TV.
Citation needed that every private school on earth has one
You need a source that every private school has kids that grow out of their uniforms?
Yes clearly that is exactly what I fucking asked about since it has 0% to do with the claim you made. That makes so so much sense.
Really putting that private school education to work today.
I’m going to need you to put your big boy thinking cap on for a second. What do you think happens to uniforms that kids grow out of?
And I want a fucking citation that every single private school on earth has a second hand shop affiliated with it.
Guess critical thinking isn’t taught at private school
I’m sorry why is your solution “make the poors pay for something else.”
Poor kids still need clothes. But if you have a uniform you only need a few shirts and pants and they are all the same so no.one will know if you only have three sets of the uniform.
If you need to wear a different outfit every day to.school you would need at least five completely different outfits and to be oerfectly honest at least 10 so you wouldn’t repeat often enough for people to notice younare wearing the same outfits all the time.
Uniforms actually reduce costs for.poor students and reduce bullying.
But of course run your mouth with nonsense cause it sounds smart.
I was one of those poor kids, so I remember being price gouged every year when I no longer fit my clothing. I also remember switching to a school that didn’t, and suddenly it was less expensive because, unlike your implication, I didn’t run around naked outside of my uniform when not in school, and wore the same clothing in and out. I also remember doing research and citing sources for my claims, which you seem to be short on. Maybe it’s because you’re not wearing your uniform right now? Can you provide a source for any of your claims?
not agreeing. i would want to wear my clothes. just casual, nothing gucci or else. the school should offer uniforms but without forcing studemts to wear it. something like an advertisement.
The whole point of removing the choice is to remove the signals that the choices send. Making the uniform an option goes against the definition of “uniform”.
One option. Everyone the same. That’s what “uniform” means.
Yeah this is all wrong
It won’t be clothing can just get at Walmart, is practical, and comfortable. It will be polyester Landsend shit that is too expensive, rips easily, takes weeks to get there, and feels like steel wool on your skin. Meanwhile teachers and admins will continue to wear what they want.
It won’t promote equality since the poor kids will just have ripped up stuff and the rich kids will load up on the accessories
Fucking deal with it. You should be able to handle not having the best clothing in life. I did.
My school tried a uniform for a few years and I have never once forgave them for that. I won’t allow my kids to be punished the same way. Also someone found their old uniform in the attic many years later, shredded it with a knife, and mailed it to their former principal with a note that told them that’s what I think of your messed up uniform policy you forced on us.
Your point 2 is essentially “It won’t promote equality since [it won’t be enforced]”
Not at all.
You aren’t well informed and just are going off your own personal experience.
I worked for a school district that implemented school uniforms after a kid attempted suicide for bullying.
The dress code required polo shirts from multiple companies including target, Walmart, Costco house brands and slacks or black jeans with no rips. Bullying drastically dropped across schools in the district (there were 9 schools)
The kids name? Albert Einstein. And everyone clapped.
It would be Alberta since either was a female. But good try.
You’re getting down voted but as someone who had exactly 3 shirts and 2 pair of shorts in high school, I would have vastly preferred a uniform mandate. My mom had enough money she just didn’t see extra clothes as a necessary expense for her. She would have been forced to get the uniforms and I would have had an easier time in high school.
People are also saying that’s an unnecessary expense for the poor people, but why can the school afford the building, the teachers, administration, etc, but not 5 pairs of clothes for the students? Maybe even for need based students?
Even in public schools, parents have to pay for the gym uniform. Books too.
I have not paid a cent for either and my kids attend public