School uniforms: strength in familiarity?

   School uniforms could be turning into the new craze in Niagara County, particularly within the Niagara Falls City School District.

   The Niagara Charter School in Wheatfield started things off in August 2006, when the new school had their kids wear gray Polo shirts with the school's name and logo.

   Then Niagara Falls jumped on the bandwagon.

   That September, Henry J. Kalfas Magnet School pupils began wearing blue Polo shirts of the same ilk. In September 2007, the new Niagara Street Elementary School followed suit and this September, Geraldine J. Mann Elementary School will do the same.

   In January, administrators at the LaSalle Preparatory School hope to start up a voluntary uniform program and Gaskill Preparatory School may do the same in September 2009.

   Other districts are considering uniforms, too. The Starpoint Central School District in Pendleton, for instance, will look into the possibility during the coming school year, probably for elementary students.

   Many parents feel uniforms are practical and inexpensive in hard economic times, and make pupils more unified as a group and focused on their studies.

   What do you think?

  — Paul Westmoore

Comments

[Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II]

Students go to school to learn, not to express their individuality and questionable fashion sense.

Of course, I'm not sure I'd call a pair of dress pants and a polo shirt with a logo on it a "uniform."

I just wish the schools would make these kids pull their pants up so that the waist of the pants are in the general vicinity of the kids' waist and not half-way down their backside.

[Achai Kamau]

Regulating fashion is an affront to civil liberties unless there exists a compelling interest.

Mr. Roberts, care to cite a compelling interest for regulating the height of someone's pants?

[Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II]

Achai Kamau wrote: "Regulating fashion is an affront to civil liberties unless there exists a compelling interest.

Mr. Roberts, care to cite a compelling interest for regulating the height of someone's pants?"

Decency, teaching these kids how to dress respectably in preparation for taking their place in the working world as adults, and just the simple fact that underwear is meant to be worn UNDER one's clothes - they're not meant to be seen.

[Achai Kamau]

Teaching fashion "decency" is not the responsibility of the schools, Mr. Roberts.

Further, your own opinions on standards of decency do not, in themselves, provide a compelling interest for legislating how someone wears his or her pants.

The precedent set by such a measure would be disturbingly powerful: Imagine what types of laws could be passed in response to all of the potential sights that someone may find to be "indecent."

[honorolemodel]

Uniforms provide one type of vessel to help children focus on the reason one is attending school which is to learn. Everyone knows how curious and interested in so many things that children are when young. When one is dependent on another for not only food and clothing but education it is not a civil liberties matter but a matter of rules or practice to have a certain type of clothing for a certain situation such as school. To infer one's rights are violated by having such rules and attaching a civil right problem to it cheapens those who have real civil rights issues. If "forcing" one to wear a uniform causes or seems to result in good behavior in general then a common "good" should trump then "individual" preference.

[Achai Kamau]

"Honor Role Model":

The "common good" should trump "individual preference"?

Who decides the "common good"? And at what point do you believe that authoritarian regulation for the "common good" violates the liberties outlined in the US Constitution?

And who are you to determine what constitutes a "real civil rights issue"?

[McBea]

I say let them all dress like idiots. If they never learn how to act/dress professionally that means my well dressed, well mannered kids will beat them at the job interview every time.

[honorolemodel]

With rights comes responsibility. What planet are you on thinking a kid gets to pick his clothes when he can't afford them nor has a job nor is a constant contributing member of society. Even if he could he should be spending his money helping the welfare kids. Quit cheapening civil rights issues by comparing wardrobe issues of matters of trying to bring order to the bedlam now in the schools with civil rights. And who are you also to make that call?

[Achai Kamau]

"Honorrolemodel":

"Cheapening Civil Rights issues?" I think not. Some Americans highly value their rights of free expression.

Further, much of the obsessive demonization of the fashion choices of young Americans is aimed at African Americans. Some use this issue as another excuse with which to justify their bigotry.

Do you truly believe that fashion choices are the cause of social strife in some neighborhoods? I recommend looking a little deeper.

[honorolemodel]

Well young man, I went to an all white school that wore uniforms. Does that mean it was racially motivated for those that wished our attention to be paid on academics? Sounds like your issues are deeper than my educators intentions in having order. Oh and by the way, we also wore uniforms in high school which has students of all colors so your argument is pointless. Freedom of expression is something developed as one is taught. Schooling can occur outside a formal setting as well which is probably a good place for your expressions to be shown. You seem to miss the point and think that just by being, you are entitled to do what you like but order is everywhere and school is a wonderful place to have it so that everyone gets a fair/equal chance to learn without the distraction of tube tops, shorty shorts or whatever distracts anyone.

[Achai Kamau]

"Honorrolemodel":

First, I don't know who the "young man" is that you are addressing, but I'll assume that description is your presumptuous read on my demographic attributes.

You think that freedom of expression is "developed as one is taught"? Really? What other Constitutional rights are "developed" over time? At what point in your academic career do you earn the right to be protected from unreasonable searches? At what point do students earn the right to due process? At what point do they earn the right to not be punished by torture or other unusual methods? Would you also deny the right to vote to those who you arrogantly assume to be uneducated?

Although you do not appreciate that valuable benefit of the United States Constitution, citizens are granted rights automatically upon birth. The excuse that "order is everywhere" does not provide you with a sufficiently compelling justification to tell other people what to wear. As long as there is no nudity (a long established precedent), fashion should not be regulated. "Distractions" are a part of life and should not be used as an excuse to exercise control (the real issue here) over others, even if you believe that the young and uneducated do not deserve the right of Freedom of Expression.

[McBea]

Here is my personal experience from working at a college with a lot of kids with no expectations that decided they were going to break the mold and do something with their lives. They went to school and got good grades. They graduated. They went on interviews and spoke well and were knowledgeable. When some of those graduates would come to see us after the interview we couldn't believe what they had worn. For all their learning and accomplishments, they had never been taught how to dress professionally. The biggest mistake was confusing "dressing up" with dressing professionally. Some of the outfits would have been great for going to a club, but certainly not for going on an interview. They didn't have role models at home and the schools they attended didn't have any dress codes.

We did not serve them well by not educating them on proper business/professional attire. After much discussion, we reluctantly instituted a general dress code. Students not in compliance were given a sweatshirt or long skirt to cover their own clothes. Instituting the dress code was a difficult decision. There was a lot of debate and reluctance to enforce it when it was put into place. What it came down to was that it wasn't a debate over first ammendments or not wanting to see some kids boxers sticking out of his pants. What it came down to was teaching kids how to dress and act appropriately in a business situation. While that was at the college level I really don't see why it would be any different for a student in high school. Wear whatever you want on your time, but while you're in school...that is your job and you should dress accordingly.

[Achai Kamau]

There is a substantial difference between teaching someone how to dress "properly" and forcing that person to dress "properly." The conservative business world does not like piercings either; should school teachers rip them out of their students' faces during school hours?

[McBea]

Oh yes...rip them out and pour lemon juice in the wounds. Your use of the excess to "prove" your point betrays the weakness of your argument.

As I said...the students can dress however they please on their own time. Time in school, however, was deemed not their own personal time. It was time devoted to the teachers and the institution. If you feel that is horrible, so be it. Most of these kids were from broken homes with NO parents working. A lot of them were high school graduates, a large portion were not. Even the graduates had little education. We had to start many of them on VERY remedial stuff...I'm talking things that schools should be covering in 3-6th grades. They couldn't write a complete and proper sentence, or write out numbers as you would on a check. Long division...forget it...we had to start with adding and subtracting fractions with a lot of these kids. Many of them would have been destined to repeat the cycle of failure they observed in their parents. They came to our school and were taught to achieve and to expect nothing less of themselves. Hmmm, now that I think back on it I feel all warm and fuzzy. Gee, I guess expecting them to dress like achievers isn't really the federal case you make it out to be.

[honorolemodel]

Bless you McBea. You're a person with not only a yearning for achievement but one without regard for circumstance, economics, race or background. I couldn't hve said it better.

[i'm me but who are you?]

Achia your ignorant. This was not a racially motivated topic but somehow you managed to bring it in. Not everything has to do with race. Please get a grip on reality. Some things are done to benefit society as a whole.

[Achai Kamau]

McBea: You have again missed the point. Please define a compelling purpose for restricting the clothing choices of students. The myths described herein are not good enough:

1. "Students go to school to learn, not to express their individuality and questionable fashion sense."; "uniforms provide one type of vessel to help children focus on the reason one is attending school which is to learn . . . ": These statements imply that uniforms are required to learn. As advocates of restricting fashion, the burden of proof is on you: Please provide references to peer-reviewed literature that demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in learning due to the presence of uniforms. You cannot justify restrictions based on unsubstantiated thoughts or feelings that they might help.

2. "Decency, teaching these kids how to dress respectably in preparation for taking their place in the working world as adults . . ."; " . . . they had never been taught how to dress professionally." Then teach them! Forcing students to wear uniforms is not required to teach the confines of professional dress any more than forcing students to relive the past is required to impart knowledge and understanding of history. If you want to rely on these excuses, then prove otherwise: Show me that students must wear uniforms to learn how to dress properly.

3. "With rights comes responsibility"; "Freedom of expression is something developed as one is taught": These arguments are used to bypass the issue; each provides an excuse for control without specifically addressing why student fashion must be regulated. Further, they are so broad as to preclude any right or liberty the speaker does not favor.

4. "Time in school, however, was deemed not their own personal time": Similar to the arguments above. While perhaps accurate, the fact that students are compelled to attend school does not in and of itself imply that they must wear uniforms.

To "i'm me but who are you": I addressed the race issue because "honorrolemodel" alleged that to advocate for Freedom of Expression (Amendment I of the US Constitution) was to "cheapen" Civil Rights issues. Yet, recent events illustrate that they are intertwined: Several communities across the United States have tried to pass laws regulating how young men wear their pants; these regulations (for which no compelling purpose existed) were widely seen as methods with which to control the appearance of black men.

And don't play a fool: As a white person, I frequently witness racism justified through and buttressed with criticisms of clothing style. I highly suspect that the same individuals who cannot "look past" clothing choice and facial piercings are probably unable to look past other attributes of appearance – skin color, religious markings, physical figure – as well.

[McBea]

Points 1, 2, and 3 don't come from my posts. If you have questions about them I suggest your address them with the originator. My point was number 4, which you admit is CORRECT.

Thanks...I knew I was right all along.

...On a side note...I didn't say students needed uniforms. I was giving examples of my experience with a dress code...two very different things.

[McBea]

okay, maybe that was mean...not all share my evil sense of humor. I actually agree with you on some points...I loathe the idea of actually legislating the height of anyones pants. Not, though, because I feel it is a civil liberties issue, mostly because I think it is an absolute waste of time when there are real governmental issues that should have priority. I supect that when super mini skirts and low rise jeans first made their debuts older generations felt about them the same way many feel about the pants half off issue today.

I still stand by my point that time spent in school does not belong to the students as their own personal time.

As for being compelled to attend school, there are other options; home school or approved tutoring programs.

All of that being said, nothing in life is free...except a high school education. I think it would behoove any and all of us to take advantage of that and not spend so much time worrying about possible fashion statements.

[Achai Kamau]

"I still stand by my point that time spent in school does not belong to the students as their own personal time." - McBea

Please define the relationship between this statement and your advocacy of enforced fashion restrictions.

[honorolemodel]

Think about the choices that parents who are paying to raise their children. Just like voting on the budget, let the taxpayer choose if he wants to save a dollar in his own pocket and decide if uniforms are the answer or not. Make it part of the school budget process.