🚀 go-pugleaf

In la.general Dale Switzer <dale.switzer@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: J.M. Ivler wrote:

: > Dale, you're tale only goes on to prove the point that started this. It's
: > not about school uniforms, it is about parental responsibility. Your
: > parents took responsibility and made sure that they raised you. They
: > didn't expect the school system to do it for them. And it appears that you
: > learned from that model as you state:
: Yes, the best hope for children is their parents.  But school officials
: cannot control parents.  If all parents cared as much as you and I then
: school officials would jump and shout for joy.  But they don't have this
: wonderful situation.

No, school officials can not control parents, but they do control school.
If a school official stated. Each student must pass classes with a C or
better, and pass a basic skills test every two years, or they will be held
back until they can. Then we are on the way to making schools better. If
they were to say that a teacher had the right to throw a student out of
call for disruption, and that said students, after being expelled from
class X number of times would be suspended from school, and after Y
suspensions would be expelled for the school year. Then we are well on the
way to changing HOW the system works and what breaks down.

If a parent doesn't want to become an "at home" parent, and risk losing
their job because their kids uncontrolled, then maybe they will learn how
to parent and control their kids! If parents are failing, it is not
societies job to pick up and take over their role. It is societies job to
ensure that the parents who are parenting don't have to pay penalties for
the failure of those that have given up.

: Instead they have problem children who have parents in jail, or on their
: way to jail.  They have girls who go home every night to being raped by
: step-fathers.  Boys who stink of urine.  Public schools are not an ideal
: learning environment full of well-parented kis.  

While I can't argue with you on this based on real statistics (because I
don't have any) I would suggest that the percentage of students in the
school district I was raised in, or the one I currently live in, that
fall into your catagorization is realitivly low. Are there kids with
"problem homelives"? Sure there are. There were when I grew up, there are
today. But, that hasn't changed. Look at the crime rates, look at
incarcerations, look at lots of things and you will see that most of the
numbers have stayed perportionally the same, or dropped (in the case of
incestious rape the numbers have risen, but that is believed to have more
to do with "more reporting" than actually more incidences). The facts are
that there were problems before, and there are many of those same problems
now, but that doesn't mean that draconian measures are necessary. The idea
is to define the problem, and then develop a solution to it. Not implement
random solutions until you think you have one that works. It may just mask
the symptoms, yet make the cause worse.

: The question school board officials and principals face is "How do we
: make this less-than ideal environment better"?  If school uniforms are
: some help in this direction then by all means, let's try.

Do some tests. Get some numbers. Have a test case and see what happens.
make sure to make results measurable. Define what the goals are, the
problem area. Strive to not solve symptoms, but the cause. Start in the
K-6 range and see how the kids develop. Moe it up with the first group of
kids. It will take 5-6 years to see what happens, but that would be a
study with some validity. Without that we have "gee, Phen-fen makes you
lose weight... oppsie, sorry about that heart valve thingie..." Let's
make sure we are addressing the problem, not the symptom. Let's make sure
we can extract measurable results.

: Wait a sec. If some school board somewhere is trying to make children
: dress down then I have a problem here.  I thought we were discussing
: making children dress better in school.   

No, we are stating that they will wear a "uniform". A white shirt, blue
slacks/dress and a little bow tie for boys and a scarf for girls... To
some kids that will be "better" to a kid that was wearing nice slacks and
a Christian Dior dress shirt, it's a step down.

Define a "norm". There are always kids above and below it. Put the uniform
at the norm +10% and you move everyone up a notch, except for the 40%
above the new norm who move down.

: > Uniforms have yet to be proven to "raise the educational levels". The only
: > things studies have shown is that there is less random violence in schools
: > that have gang problems and institute a uniform policy, and there has also
: > been a slight lowering of truancy (hard to skip school while wearing a
: > uniform).
: Aren't these accomplishments enough to be worth the effort?  After all,
: more consistent discipline and safety in schools would certainly be a
: help for those kids who are trying to do well.

Problem==solution!

Problem: We have kids in gangs being shot because they are wearing
"colours" in school.
Solution: uniforms that eliminate all vestages of gang colours.

In cases where the solution fits the problem, sure, use it! But to throw
this in as a solution when the problem being addressed isn't related to
the know problems that uniforms solve, well... no don't try it.

: > Other thn that, there has been no published study that shows that grades
: > got better, students studdied more or anything else. In 1985 it wasn't
: > uniforms that took a barrio high school and turned it into the center of
: > attention as Jamie took kids that were in gangs, and never were thought to
: > have any ability and showed them that everyone was wrong, as they passed
: > the AP exams for calculas. Uniforms didn't make them smarter... a teacher
: > who believed in them made them willing to fail, and in that they succeeded
: > beyond anyones wildest imagination.
: Wonderful, he taught them that joining peaceful, law-abiding,
: civilization was worth the effort.  But isn't respectable dress part of
: that joining.

No, it wasn't. He taught them that THEY controlled their own destiny. No
one has the ability to set you down, you do it to yourself. Does that
translate into "dress"? In some cases yes. Is that the lesson... was the
lesson that your dress made you? No. It was that YOU made you. You had
control over yourself.

: > Garfield didn't have uniforms, but in 1990 they had more students take and
: > pass the Calc AP exam than Beverly Hills. [might have been 1991...]

You didn't comment on this. The point here was that the kids at Beverly
Hills High dress a great deal better than those at Garfield, but it didn't
help them do better on the exam. Ability counts more than dress in that
success. No, the next lesson is to track these kids and see where they are
today. then explain that once you have the ability, you have to package
the product as well.

: > Teachers... Parents... Students... that's where the difference is amde...
: > not in some arbituary dress code that puts kids in uniforms.
: Correct, absolutely correct.  But uniforms need not necessarily be
: excluded from that recipe.  

If the solve the "problem" great, use them. But if they are a bandaid
being placed over the aeorta that has been slashed, well they may look
good, but they won't do the job.

: I have a different reason for liking the dress codes.  Some children who
: have good parents, who have good reinforcement at home.  Yet in the
: natural independence of teenage youth, they pick up and identify
: themselves with less savoury elements of socity.  I want their
: identification to have the fewest possible physical representations.
: Therefore when they grow up and get some sense, they have not joined
: themselves too closely to get loose.

This is THEIR PARENTS PROBLEM. Just like it is your problem with your
kids, it is their problem with their kids. Each person has to come to
grips with what it is that they want to deal with on an individual basis
with their kids. 

For example it was important to me that my daughter be "polite" as I
defined it. that meant asking for things with a "please" and saying "thank
you" when she was given stuff. We taught her this was acceptable behavior
by rewarding it when it was done and not being resonsive when it wasn't.
We also followed these rules ourself in the house (although my daughter
also learned to say "honey, could you please pass the dressing" to my wife
rather than "mom, ..."). What a nice feeling it is to have people come up
and tell you "how polite you are" and "what a nice girl" because you know
and use common curtousy. The real reward, people nice you and complment
you, you get nice little gifts from people who reward your positive
behavior while your cousins don't... :-)

The point? As a parent it was important for me to instill politness into
my daughter. She has since learned the benefits of being polite are
actually much greater trhan what mom and dad give her. She is now polite
becuase she likes what happens when she is polite. Unlike other kids,
adults not only talk TO her, they listen to what she says, and she does
know the difference between the way she is treated and the way other kids
are.

As a parent it will also be MY job to teach her that proper attire makes a
difference. That will be a bit harder as I still prefer jeans and a
t-shirt and an unshaven face, but her mother is very good with "proper
dress" and she will hopefully learn that from her moreso than me.

: What I do not understand, and what you may be able to help me with.  Why
: is the opposition to dress codes and uniforms so intense?  What harm can
: they do?

I have spent a great deal of my time in parenting trying to develope a
sense of "individual accomplishment" in my daughter. I have rewarded her
for every attempt she makes at making her own decisions and, even if I
don't like the results, supporting those decisions. Because of this I have
been rewarded with a kid who is very independent, and very sensible. I am
really quite proud of her, and she knows it.

When she gets dressed I support her in her desire to choose her own
outfits (he mother scolds her for clashing and stuff like that, I just
let her go out "looking silly" and then she gives me grief for it
afterwards). I support her decisions to define herself. we discuss what
wardrobe means, and how peple can use it. We call it "packaging a look"
and discuss it when we see it on TV and in the movies (or even at the
mall). The kids got smarts and creativity. I don't want to see someone
kill that because they want to throw possible solutions at the wall until
one sticks and seems to cover their social concern.

If these people were to define a problem and then develop a proposed
solution to it that had some rational basis, great. But if all they want
to do is limit freedoms because they can't control the kids at home, well
that's bogus and I'll fight that like any other form of censorship. Dress
is a form of expression, and it shouldn't be limitted unless there is a
very good cause for it.

jmi