Mandating uniforms doesn't change this: in fact, it can simply turn the uniform into a sex symbol. (Why else do you think so many porn videos have students dress in plaid or, in Japan, as sailors?)Fantasea said:The questions to be decided first are:
What is the purpose of having schools in the first place?
"What is the amount of tax money I pay for education? Home owners pay school taxes directly; renters pay it indirectly through their landlords. It is also paid as part of income taxes. No one escapes paying for education.
Are we getting our money's worth? Are we satisfied with the drop out rates, the failure of graduates to be able to read their diplomas, the need for students wanting to go to college to take high school remedial courses first, etc., etc.?
What are some of the reasons that students don't learn? Distractions, for one. Teen aged boys ogling girls who expose every possible inch of skin and lingerie aren't developing an understanding of math or science. Girls who spend every waking minute struggling to squeeze out every last bit of glamor in order to attract attention are not concentrating on the lesson of the day.
'Gang' or 'clique' related garb only exacerbates the problem by further stealing attention away from studies.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure if your city has an arts magnet, but in my experiences with them (my sister and her friends are CAPA alums), "freaky" styles only affect students adversely if they live in an intolerant area. If anything, it's good to have a few "outlandish" kids around: they can teach tolerance and how one's outer perception alters others' behavior.Those who lean toward the outlandish and 'freaky' styles in clothing, makeup, and grooming all but guarantee that their distraction to others will effect themselves adversely as well.
Honey, teens are teens: they're always going to be preoccupied. I would worry less about what kids wear and more about substantive changes.All of this has a negative effect on the classroom teacher who has to struggle to teach kids who are pre-occupied with other things. In many respects, the teacher's effectiveness may be compared to a car that gets half the gas mileage that it should.
And how are you going to learn that if you can't really alter what you wear?The applicability of several old adages come to mind. "Clothes make the man." "Birds of a feather flock together."
Even businesses that permit employees to observe 'casual dress Friday' have discovered that productivity drops noticably on that day.
The experience of schools that observe a strict dress code or require uniforms shows several benefits. Class discipline and grades improve. Parents report that there is a cash savings because they don't have to keep up with every fad that comes along.But not if they do casual dress Wednesday. Correlation is not causation.
Only if you look at the average. Many of our wealthy suburban districts produce children that are as well-educated as any other nations, and our education for gifted kids is still top-notch. The fact that our averages are still abysmal simply indicates that we need to follow other nations' lead and centralize education funding and curricula.Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the US, in spite of spending many times more than most countries to educate each child, places far down the list in terms of achievement.
The ones I know think that the uniform debate simply distracts attention from more important matters.Ask a few teachers for their input on the question.
It is the young AGE thing that is sexy. If they can take a 40 year old and make her look like she is 18 in a plaid skirt - it will sell.Mandating uniforms doesn't change this: in fact, it can simply turn the uniform into a sex symbol. (Why else do you think so many porn videos have students dress in plaid or, in Japan, as sailors?)
I agree with this to a point, but only in character. There will always be the silent and loud types. The really unique characters will stand out regardless what they are wearing.Not necessarily. I'm not sure if your city has an arts magnet, but in my experiences with them (my sister and her friends are CAPA alums), "freaky" styles only affect students adversely if they live in an intolerant area. If anything, it's good to have a few "outlandish" kids around: they can teach tolerance and how one's outer perception alters others' behavior.
The one I am married to one that really likes the idea of school uniforms. I just asked her and this is her quote "I think it will put the focus where it needs to be instead of a fashion show". Her words not mine. BTW, she is a junior high art teacher. She is not in a magnate school, but would love to be.Quote: Ask a few teachers for their input on the question.
The ones I know think that the uniform debate simply distracts attention from more important matters.
Thanksvauge said:First of all... Welcome to Debate Politics.
:wcm
I'm not doubting that age is part of it. I've just noticed that segregating society according to age in such a noticeable way doesn't prevent boys' minds from wandering: instead, it gives them a very tangible focus. If we want boys to stop thinking about sex, we should probably start injecting them with androgen-suppressing hormones.It is the young AGE thing that is sexy. If they can take a 40 year old and make her look like she is 18 in a plaid skirt - it will sell.
Two problems. First of all, most people aren't "really unique." Secondly, there are many different ways to be "loud" and "quiet." Loud/quiet in social terms seems to deal more with extroversion/introversion, while loud and quiet in terms of fashion seems to have more to do with artistic ability. One problem I have with uniforms is that it reinforces the idea that, if you're good at one thing, you're good at all things -- and if you're not worth being noticed in one arena, you're not worth being noticed in any. (Which seems to be why so many kids go to the extreme ends of the rainbow with their hair color in the first place.)I agree with this to a point, but only in character. There will always be the silent and loud types. The really unique characters will stand out regardless what they are wearing.
The teachers I know who taught at schools with uniforms noticed something interesting: uniforms did not necessarily prevent a fashion show. The Payless/Prada divisions still existed; the only difference was that it took teachers a while to catch on. After all, if you've spent years looking at students' clothes pre-uniforms and seeing the difference between $20 jeans and t-shirt ensembles compared to $5,000 Gucci outfits, it's difficult to spot the difference between $10 and $1,000 patent leather shoes. (I know the New York Times had a good article on this a few months ago, but it looks like it's archived.)The one I am married to one that really likes the idea of school uniforms. I just asked her and this is her quote "I think it will put the focus where it needs to be instead of a fashion show".
Teaching is definitely most rewarding when your students like your subject as much as you do.Her words not mine. BTW, she is a junior high art teacher. She is not in a magnate school, but would love to be.
But not if they do casual dress Wednesday. Correlation is not causation.
When productivity drops on every Friday that is 'casual dress Friday', I believe that causation has been established; at least to the satisfaction of the employer whose business is effected.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the US, in spite of spending many times more than most countries to educate each child, places far down the list in terms of achievement.
Only if you look at the average. Many of our wealthy suburban districts produce children that are as well-educated as any other nations, and our education for gifted kids is still top-notch. The fact that our averages are still abysmal simply indicates that we need to follow other nations' lead and centralize education funding and curricula.
It's not the money. It's the fact that teachers no longer have control of their classrooms. Learning takes place only on the days the troublemakers and incorrigibles play hooky. Ask any teacher who works in a below average school.
The quick remedy is to expand the Cleveland, Ohio voucher program which enables parents to remove their children from a failing school and place them in a school of their choice. For your information the USSC has ruled that vouchers, as used in Cleveland, do not violate the Constitution.
Lousy schools will either have to clean up their act or fold.
Quote:
Ask a few teachers for their input on the question.
The ones I know think that the uniform debate simply distracts attention from more important matters.
The polygraph that screens stuff before I read it is flashing red. This is an indication that your last statement may be less than accurate.
You get another chance. Have you really discussed the pros and cons of school uniforms with at least a few teachers?
The first part of your response simply appears to confirm my point, and thus undermine your original argument that uniforms reduce teenage sexual distractions.Fantasea said:Mandating uniforms doesn't change this: in fact, it can simply turn the uniform into a sex symbol. (Why else do you think so many porn videos have students dress in plaid or, in Japan, as sailors?)
Plaid is already a very popular choice for school uniforms in the US. Since it seems to be the ambition of most teen and sub-teen girls to portray themselves as classroom sex goddesses, do you think that this may be the reason for the popularity of plaid? If so, the idea of uniforms should spread like wildfire, shouldn't it?
Quote:
Those who lean toward the outlandish and 'freaky' styles in clothing, makeup, and grooming all but guarantee that their distraction to others will effect themselves adversely as well.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure if your city has an arts magnet, but in my experiences with them (my sister and her friends are CAPA alums), "freaky" styles only affect students adversely if they live in an intolerant area. If anything, it's good to have a few "outlandish" kids around: they can teach tolerance and how one's outer perception alters others' behavior.
I don't believe that one is obliged to tolerate anything and everything that punk and rock stars dump on us that filters down to their groupies and wannabees, along with kids who see their mission in life as punishing their parents.
Huh? Factual problems aside, from what I can tell, your example doesn't support your idea that tolerance is "desensitizing"; instead, it shows how the sensitivity responsible for tolerance leads to empathy and greater interpersonal understanding.The problem with tolerance is that it has a desensitizing effect on humans. As caucasians who spend any length of time in the Orient have observed, every day, the almond shaped eyes of the locals seem a little rounder. Eventually, while the difference still exists, it is no longer apparent.
First of all, this is not addressing my point. If you can't respond to my arguments, please don't waste my time.Quote:
All of this has a negative effect on the classroom teacher who has to struggle to teach kids who are pre-occupied with other things. In many respects, the teacher's effectiveness may be compared to a car that gets half the gas mileage that it should.
Honey, teens are teens: they're always going to be preoccupied. I would worry less about what kids wear and more about substantive changes.
Evidently, you're not a teacher.
How is it self-evident? And if it's self-evident, then wouldn't enforcing uniforms go against an innate human law?Quote:
The applicability of several old adages come to mind. "Clothes make the man." "Birds of a feather flock together."
And how are you going to learn that if you can't really alter what you wear?
It is not only in the Declaration of Independence that things are self-evident.
Productivity drops on every Friday, regardless of casual dress. Your company may be the exception to the rule, but the statistics are so sound that that's what they're teaching in every Wharton management class.Quote:
Even businesses that permit employees to observe 'casual dress Friday' have discovered that productivity drops noticably on that day.
The experience of schools that observe a strict dress code or require uniforms shows several benefits. Class discipline and grades improve. Parents report that there is a cash savings because they don't have to keep up with every fad that comes along.
But not if they do casual dress Wednesday. Correlation is not causation.
When productivity drops on every Friday that is 'casual dress Friday', I believe that causation has been established; at least to the satisfaction of the employer whose business is effected.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the US, in spite of spending many times more than most countries to educate each child, places far down the list in terms of achievement.
Only if you look at the average. Many of our wealthy suburban districts produce children that are as well-educated as any other nations, and our education for gifted kids is still top-notch. The fact that our averages are still abysmal simply indicates that we need to follow other nations' lead and centralize education funding and curricula.
It's not the money. It's the fact that teachers no longer have control of their classrooms. Learning takes place only on the days the troublemakers and incorrigibles play hooky. Ask any teacher who works in a below average school.
You can believe that all you want, but remember, the private schools aren't as cost-effective as you'd like to believe. In most states, the public school districts are required to supply private schools with books, transportation, etc. identical to public school students' on demand. If the public schools crumble, a lot of private school parents will find themselves without a solid educational infrastructure.The quick remedy is to expand the Cleveland, Ohio voucher program which enables parents to remove their children from a failing school and place them in a school of their choice. For your information the USSC has ruled that vouchers, as used in Cleveland, do not violate the Constitution.
Lousy schools will either have to clean up their act or fold.
Quote:
Ask a few teachers for their input on the question.
The ones I know think that the uniform debate simply distracts attention from more important matters.
The polygraph that screens stuff before I read it is flashing red. This is an indication that your last statement may be less than accurate.
Yup. When I was an undergrad, Philly public schools were in the process of implementing uniforms, so it was quite a hot topic of discussion.You get another chance. Have you really discussed the pros and cons of school uniforms with at least a few teachers?
I was kinda hoping someone could post some pictures?argexpat said:Uniforms. That way students will be forced to express themselves with their brains and not their wardrobe.
Plus the girls look so hot in those little outfits!![]()
mixedmedia said:Fantasea wrote:
I don't believe that one is obliged to tolerate anything and everything that punk and rock stars dump on us that filters down to their groupies and wannabees, along with kids who see their mission in life as punishing their parents.
The problem with tolerance is that it has a desensitizing effect on humans. As caucasians who spend any length of time in the Orient have observed, every day, the almond shaped eyes of the locals seem a little rounder. Eventually, while the difference still exists, it is no longer apparent.
I do have an opinion on school uniforms and probably not the opinion that you guys might expect.
I want to comment on the above statement first by Fantasea which is really troubling.
"The problem with tolerance is that it has a desensitizing effect on humans."
What? I am flabbergasted. Tolerance has the effect of making people tolerant, not desensitized. Are you trying to say that all people should try to be alike so you don't have to relate to people as individuals or feel uncomfortable around them? Does it disturb the quality of your life to see people dressing the way they feel comfortable? Ya know, I hate to see a man wearing overalls or sandals with socks, but I will fight for his right to do so if it's what makes him feel comfortable.![]()
This is America, Fantasea, where differences are not only appreciated but PREFERRED and if I were a biased ignoramus, like many of my neighbors, I would use the standard "If you don't like it get out" line that is used so often against liberals like me in this country.
End of rant...
Now to uniforms.
The question of plaid skirts is largely a moot point because uniforms in public schools are most usually khaki or navy blue pants or skirts and white, green, or navy polo shirts. As we do here in Louisiana.
I think that school uniforms are a good idea. They go a lot further in placing the kids on an even turf and it is much easier on the parental wallet. Their "good clothes" last a lot longer. And they eventually get used to it...while incorporating personal touches that set them apart. Our schools here will usually make exceptions to the code with modest jewelry (even unusual piercings to some extent), colorful socks & unusual shoes (as my daughter does) and even somewhat extreme hair colors, etc. But the fundamental parts, the pants and tops, are strictly enforced. I think it works well here.
My sister is a high school teacher in Florida and as liberal as she is, she would prefer school uniforms. We both take issue with the clothing that is being promoted as acceptable daywear for young girls (that is a topic unto itself - the 3 B's phenomena - Barbie/Bratz/Britney, I call it). And neither of us are particularly thrilled with the "ass-crack" trend in young boys wear. Not that we think they should be forbidden from dressing as they like (or how their parents allow) when not at school, it would just lend to a more "scholarly" atmosphere to display a little more modesty in class. And I, as the most liberal person I know, tend to agree.
My point in comparing Catholic school uniforms to Japanese sailor uniforms is that it doesn't matter what the uniform looks like: they still single out young girls, which sexualizes high schoolers in the wider culture in a dangerous way.mixedmedia said:Now to uniforms.
The question of plaid skirts is largely a moot point because uniforms in public schools are most usually khaki or navy blue pants or skirts and white, green, or navy polo shirts. As we do here in Louisiana.
Physically yes, but "good" in social terms is still dictated by t.v. and fashion houses.I think that school uniforms are a good idea. They go a lot further in placing the kids on an even turf and it is much easier on the parental wallet. Their "good clothes" last a lot longer.
If you're trying to learn about your individuality and tolerance, "modest jewelry" that's fundamentally part of the dress code doesn't help.And they eventually get used to it...while incorporating personal touches that set them apart. Our schools here will usually make exceptions to the code with modest jewelry (even unusual piercings to some extent),
In Philly, they found that those touches still foster gang, class, and drug problems.colorful socks & unusual shoes (as my daughter does) and even somewhat extreme hair colors, etc. But the fundamental parts, the pants and tops, are strictly enforced. I think it works well here.
Call me crazy, but I think having books that are less than 15 years old goes and buildings without severe asbestos problems goes much farther to promoting a scholarly atmosphere than uniforms.My sister is a high school teacher in Florida and as liberal as she is, she would prefer school uniforms. We both take issue with the clothing that is being promoted as acceptable daywear for young girls (that is a topic unto itself - the 3 B's phenomena - Barbie/Bratz/Britney, I call it). And neither of us are particularly thrilled with the "ass-crack" trend in young boys wear. Not that we think they should be forbidden from dressing as they like (or how their parents allow) when not at school, it would just lend to a more "scholarly" atmosphere to display a little more modesty in class. And I, as the most liberal person I know, tend to agree.
The only problem is that you have some choice in what you do, where you do it, and why you do it. (Not to mention an ability to negotiate with your boss.) Kids don't.Hoot said:Just about every job you have as an adult has some sort of dress code...even manual labor.
School is the job of these kids.
If young men really did care about female sexuality over their individuality, you'd see marriage occur at a much younger age.Fantasea said:I]Secondly, our society tends to openly prize individuality over female sexuality.[/I]
The feminine portion of society, in general, perhaps. High school boys? Never. They epitomize the one track mind. It has been observed that the human male spends the first nine months of his life trying to get out of a woman’s body and the remainder of it trying to get back in. Pubescent boys try the hardest. Their astounding success in this endeavor is evidenced by the rate of teen-aged pregnancies we bemoan.
When girls become teenagers, they tend to learn a few harsh social rules: among them that, in this society, it is far more important for a women to be beautiful and have a boyfriend than intelligent. They're focusing on what they actually see, and not the myths society pays lip service to.In their never ending quest to project a more attractive appearance, just what is it that teen-aged school girls, who should be concentrating on becoming educated, are striving so hard to attract?
I was referring to your other quotes on tolerance (i.e., the ones about desensitivity). Secondly, my point still applies to this quote. If you don't expect people to tolerate each other, then why should they tolerate your views on what they wear?If you don't believe that anyone is obliged to tolerate anything, then why do you expect students to tolerate your desire to force them to wear certain clothes?
That is not what I wrote. A quote of my words is:
"I don't believe that one is obliged to tolerate anything and everything that punk and rock stars dump on us that filters down to their groupies and wannabees, along with kids who see their mission in life as punishing their parents."
I'm not saying that they are obligated to accept and love those who are radically different: I'm just saying that, in a globalized world, we all have to learn how to tolerate those who are different. If we don't, we're going to destroy our economy, social infrastructure, and international power. (Not to mention depelete our cultural resources.) We set up public schools in the first place because we realized that, without them, we would face these problems.Huh? Factual problems aside, from what I can tell, your example doesn't support your idea that tolerance is "desensitizing"; instead, it shows how the sensitivity responsible for tolerance leads to empathy and greater interpersonal understanding.
Tolerance leads to acceptance. Many people have no need and no desire to empathize or understand ‘in your face’ affectations, actions, or habits which they find distasteful, at best, repulsive, at worst. Surely, you wouldn’t deny them this freedom, would you?
When it comes to discovering who you are, yes. Mentors can show you paths others have taken, but it's up to you to figure out which one suits you.And how are you going to learn that if you can't really alter what you wear?
Are you saying that the only way to learn is through personal experience; trial and error, as it were?
You're referring to a completely different type of education.If this is true, why would there be a need for teachers, in the first place?
School settings do have different requirements from lesiure and business settings. But in each environment, the requirements are there because they produce a benefit that is overly difficult to produce in any other way. That's why, for example, construction workers have to wear hard hats but not business suits. So far, public and private schools' experiences with uniforms have demonstrated that they do not radically improve the problems that they're supposed to address.Might it not be better to say that the school setting, as with the business setting has requirements that differ from one’s leisure setting?