Well, sure. My point is that it’s easier for the students and the parents.
How much liberty should children have? I don’t have a problem with parents having authority over their children, or delegating some of that authority to the schools their children attend.
My son’s school uniform - he’s in 6th grade - is very similar to what I remember as being my school uniform in elementary and high school. A school T-shirt, meaning a short in any solid color with a the school crest printed on the left breast*; long pants or shorts (jeans, khaki or sweats) in a solid color; shoes or sandals; in the winter, a school sweatshirt, any color. Something like this. Basically the minimum level of uniformity you can have while still being a nominal uniform. As a parent, I’m happy with it - it keeps things simple and easy to manage.
*Available at plenty of shops in the school district, and relatively cheaply.
I think it’s that they’re pointless and fairly expensive (unless you’re the type to wear one ragged polyester tie day after day, you need a selection, and they need to be reasonably in style and good quality, and cleaned occasionally, etc.)
And they haven’t been good at catching soup since about 1978.
Trinopus#40,
How is liberty an issue in public school. The purpose is indoctrination into social norms. Proper dress is part of the indoctrination. All jobs have a uniform code whether spoken or unspoken.
Students wearing gang colors is Libertarian but not conducive to social order.
Crane
In Australia, about 80 to 90 % of all schools are uniform schools. I wore a uniform all the way from Prep to Year 12, and it didn’t traumatise me one bit. On the other hand, I’m fairly sure that every single one of those uniform schools has Casual Clothes Day at least once a year, thus completely undercutting the ‘because they’ll get TEASED for their clothes!’ argument. (Casual clothes day used to traumatise the hell out of me in primary school. I’d head off for the bus with the note actually in my hand, going … ‘yep, note says April 10 … yes, pretty sure that’s today … checks note … still says April 10…’ And then there was the time I accidentally wore my summer uniform the day before summer changeover had officially been declared … shudder)
Random anecdote from the other side of the argument - my great aunty used to have a picture of herself and siblings out for a day in the bush, all in their school uniforms. This was some time in the 20’s. Why were they wearing school uniforms on a holiday? 'Cos they were the only decent clothes they owned… So I guess it’s an argument that might have made sense back in the day, but not now. Clothes are cheap. My older daughter’s school uniform is probably about twice as expensive as any other outfit she owns - though admittedly good quality.
People get very invested in the uniform issue though, and nobody likes to admit that it’s really all personal preference, and doesn’t make any substantive difference one way or another. Our primary school has an optional ‘uniform’, and about once a decade they poll parents about making it compulsory. Last time, the motion failed by about 60/40 - a close enough margin to get pretty intense, and raise the passions in a way that’s pretty incredible for such a basically unimportant issue. The principal emerged from his bunker after about three weeks of being collared and berated by parents on BOTH sides of the issue, grey-faced and muttering ‘my God, why did I DO that?? Never again! Never, never again!’
But, again, you come at it backward. In a free society, our liberties are the prevailing assumption, and you need a reason to take them away. You don’t make people justify their liberty, and take it away if they can’t.
It is my opinion that the advantages of mandatory uniforms do not warrant the loss of liberty.
Liberty is an issue everywhere. You need to demonstrate a good reason before you take it away.
A laughably outdated notion. Since I joined the workforce full-time ~9 years ago, I’ve never worked a job with a dress code more stringent than “don’t show skin other people don’t want to see”. If I wanted to go to work in shorts and a T-shirt, nobody gave a crap, and many people worse exactly that.
I like Alessan’s description – the minimal degree of uniformity to call it a “uniform”. “Simple and easy to manage.”
To be honest IMO a simple, minimalist “uniform” of that sort would be better than some of the cumbersomely subjective dress codes that some non-uniformed schools try to impose, where you get into heated arguments as to what is or is not a collar or a sleeve, what are “gang colors”, what is too long or too short or too tight or too sheer or too distracting or too disruptive or do you count the buttons to keep closed from the bottom or from the top, why was Alex and not Taylor sent home to change into something more appropriate, etc.
Our public schools have mostly gone for “strongly encouraged” uniforms since the late 50s/early 70s and it was mostly as mentioned earlier due to the high rate of dire poverty at the time and wanting to make things easier for parents. The private schools used to have all fancy-schmancy uniforms with crests and ties and school tartans and suchcrap but with time they’ve simplified too and the systems have converged in style to something more climate-appropriate. A majority of both public and private schools here nowadays do the following:
-
top, everyone: knit pullover shirt, school color. For most public schools, unbadged solid so it can be any brand. (However, private schools and some of the more competitive public High Schools get the school name or logo on it and yes, those create great wailing and gnashing of teeth because it often means an “exclusive supplier” … “today’s vocabulary word, students, is kickback”:p).
-
bottoms:
(a) twill trouser in navy/grey/brown/khaki depending on the school or district; entirely generic and interchangeable, just not denims. If your pants are damaged or in the laundry most schools will let it slide as long as you got the top.
(b) skirt or jumper of same color of the trousers, these days mostly worn with spanks underneath because, hey, schoolboys (*more below on a late controversy). -
closed-toe shoes and solid color socks, just not gym shoes except on gym day.
-
more subjectively, no unusual or distracting hair or ornamentation, definition varying per school. A few weeks ago, when the PUR team in the World Baseball Classic all bleached their hair as a team-spirit gesture, a wave of solidarity among young lads in the Island put this rule to the test. Most schools wisely backed down.
(*) Boys OR girls may wear the trousers, girls can choose (and let’s be honest, often have a hefty level of social pressure for it) the skirts. This quaint inequality was given a pass as insignificant until very recently (less than 2 years ago) the rules were modified to have transgender students dress as their identity, rather than per assigned at birth. Except that then someone noticed it still means girls get to choose pants or skirt and boys are still mandated pants. So someone somewhere upstairs in the Department proposed “hey, how about everyone wear whatever you want”. That made conservatives saiy “OMG, schools are encouraging crossdressing”, and trans advocates say “Whoa there! What we’re about is NOT crossdressing!” To this day it’s still back and forth what’s what. And no, they can’t say pants for everyone because there’s some traditionalist churches that forbid girls wearing trousers.
In general, I agree with you.
But when we’re talking about children, there has to be a sliding scale of sorts. I mean, should I really give my three-year-old freedom of choice? I don’t think she’d do well on a diet of chocolate, ice cream and pickles (she’s weird).
Now, a 12-year old? Different story, and obviously I’ll increase the amount of liberty she has as she gets older. But she’ll still be a child. And I wouldn’t let her go to Coachella.
Anyway, I still think uniforms are easier on parents, for sure, and in some not unimportant ways, for students, too. And, based on the experience of just about everyone with whom I grew up, it doesn’t really bother the kids to wear a uniform, anyway.
That said, it won’t be a factor in choosing schools for my children. Plenty of more important things.
Nine years of Catholic school, and we started wearing uniforms when I was in fourth grade. (Before that we just had to wear dressy clothes) I hated those things. Ugly, blue polyestor plaid skirts and jumpers. (You were allowed to wear pants, too, thank god, but my mother still got me the skirts and jumpers). I was THRILLED when I got to high school and could wear regular stuff.
Unless you have a school with major gang activities, for public schools, I’m really not in favor of them. They’re not very comfortable, and there’s really no point to them.
(A ban on gay marriage, though? Let’s get some perspective, here)
There is a good reason to have education of children be peaceful and less stressful. Eliminating unnecessary distractions and creating a more level playing field with regards to dignity is important. I’m in favor of not only school uniforms but also free breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack for all school children regardless of family income.
We could build one less carrier to pay for it.
I’d suggest we should distinguish between the *notion *of a school establishing a uniform, and school uniforms being done badly, with expensive or poor quality or short supply or high maintenance or climate-inadequate or impractical for everyday use or uncomfortable, ill-fitting or subjectively ugly specific items.
Yes, this makes sense.
I’m strongly in favour of school uniforms, but only uniforms of the “grey/khaki/black pants/shorts/skirts, white/colour golf/short-sleeved shirt, generic coloured jersey” variety. Blazers, ties, custom jerseys are all too much IMO. nothing that comes from just one store. I think all the schools in a district should decide which school gets which colours.
Schools that want their kids to be badged can have just the badges produced with fusible interfacing, so they can be ironed on or sewn onto the shirt, similar to Scout badges.
Poverty is one reason - remember I’m in South Africa, where poverty is way worse than in the States. But even the most discount of clothing stores carries the generic national school uniform of grey pants/skirt and white shirt, very cheaply.
Safety is a big driver for uniforms here - coupled with reducing gang activity in schools, being able to identify non-pupils quicker is an asset.
And it’s not just uniformity within schools, but having all public schools choose uniforms makes for a cohesive social cohort countrywide. Whether that’s an asset or a detriment is debateable, but I think it’s a positive for all students to see themselves as a coherent social and political grouping.
I don’t understand the complaint about school shoes being uncomfortable - basic school shoes here are not quite the same as dress shoes, they have a tougher rubber sole and are fairly comfortable. I continued wearing them after school throughout Uni.
I take it Americans mean something different by “jumper” than a jersey if only girls wear them. Is it something like a gymslip?
This is what I mean by basic school shoe, BTW. More like Doc Marten shoes than Oxford wingtips.
My son mostly attended schools that allowed freedom of dress, but in 5th and 6th grade he attended a school with uniforms. Other than the fact that uniforms made my life easier as a parent, the clothing policies didn’t seem to make any difference one way or the other.
I take the point about heading off gang identifications through uniforms, but that’s context-dependent and can’t be used as an argument in favor of uniforms in all situations. In some cases, school uniforms could actually lead to trouble - if, for example, a kid is bullied while walking home in uniform because she goes to a school regarded as snooty, or there is out-of-control inter-school rivalry.
Personally, I’m opposed to school uniforms because I think they send the wrong message to children, namely that conformity is inherently desirable. But having witnessed how little impact the uniform had on my son’s academic experience, I don’t think a school’s policy is a huge deal on way or the other. There are many much more important issues to address.
You say “conformity”, I say “social cohesion”.
I agree.
The social cohesion is an important thing.
the simple school uniform as like the south african or in my experience, has positive effects.
I think a lot of schools in the US have school uniforms for exactly those reasons, as well as the fact that if the district mandates the uniform, the uniforms are often sold in local uniform or retail stores at very low prices.
I went to a middle school where there was effectively no dress code (they prohibited shorts and revealing clothes, but that was about it), and the entire place was a constant fashion competition of sorts- there were “cool” brands, and “uncool” brands, and it generally followed with where you bought them- expensive department stores = “cool”, local discount stores or clothing stores = “uncool”. (it was Houston in the 1980s, so Foley’s was cool, and Weiners was uncool, FWIW).
Anyway, I then went to a high school where there wasn’t a uniform, but we did have a dress code that in today’s terminology would be called business casual. The beauty of it was that there was a lot less opportunity for affluence-based fashion discrimination because when you get down to it, the differences between chinos, loafers, belts and other business casual clothing are very subtle, and tend toward better fabrics, better longevity, better fit, etc… none of which are things high school kids are going to compete about.
So I went from a school where I was less than cool as far as clothing was concerned, to somewhere where no one cared because everyone had to wear the same stuff.
I can’t help but think that uniforms do that, AND are cheaper for the parents than a business casual sort of dress code.
This garment: https://www.cookieskids.com/product.aspx?p=LTG01235&green=AF7AAC00-162D-5D14-9CD2-1FE6A8109447&icid=mybuysrecs
(Picture chosen so as to not portray any actual minors)