School Uniforms

[Dr. Shane]

FATIGUE FLAP: LHS student sent home for wearing camouflage outfit

Quote:

---

Lowell High Headmaster Bill Samaras said military gear is associated with some local gangs, and could disrupt students' safety and their learning environment.

“This has nothing to do with the military. We allow Reserve Officer Training Corps to wear military gear because they wear it in a respectful manner. It's the gang relation. If it's controversial or if it has gang associations, we won't have it,” Samaras said.

---

I don't understand why more schools are not requiring school uniforms.

[cricket]

I don't understand why more in the adult work force aren't required to wear uniforms.

[Amelia]

Im sure China would be more than happy to supply us with all the chairman Mao outfits we needed. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/tomato.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

Most places do have dress codes--schools included! I'm just wondering why if it is such a good idea to have uniforms in schools, why it wouldn't be just as equally good to have uniforms required in the work place.

[cricket]

That's precisely my point. Why should we (adults) force uniformity on children when we, ourselves, do not conform to uniformity in the workplace?

If it is good enough for one place, it should be good enough for the other.

[Nan]

Living in a country where school uniforms are the norm and only a percentage of work places have staff uniforms, I can assure you it works quite well. There are various reasons for having uniforms, one its practical aspects means that there is not the early morning wondering of what to wear. It really is not such a bad idea to have students subject to some sort of rules. The creative ones find ways to look less uniform <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

Is it such a bad idea to subject adults to some sort of rules?

Truly, I think it would be a great thing if everyone had a uniform to wear. No one would have to wonder what to put on. No one would stand out in a crowd. No one would have even a moment's hesitation as to what his/her status is.

There would be more of a socialist flair to our societies. Visual as men are, they would no longer be tempted by women in the workforce. Women would no longer be filled with jealousy and envy at what the other women wear.

What a change it could make! Indeed, societies might become so much more controlled that children wouldn't ever need correction: the adults would be behaving as they should have all along and the children would learn from their elders.

Indeed! Uniformity in the workplace first! Uniformity in the schools second!

[Gerr]

Is uniformity the issue? Or is it decency? Look at God's creation and see if God strove for uniformity.

Gerry

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gerry Cabalo said:

Is uniformity the issue? Or is it decency? Look at God's creation and see if God strove for uniformity.

Gerry

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Uniforms can be enforced ... decency must be learned.

You don't have to go to Africa to see parents struggling to raise money for uniforms. Uniforms are expensive for parents (and grandparents). And, yes the children can make them "individualized" They also can create the "name-brand" image which makes less advantaged children stand out even more than the non-uniform culture.

But, it hasn't been that long ago that good SDA girls didn't wear collars that revealed the collar-bone. No sleeveless blouses, "pants" only when it was very cold or working on a farm. No bare legs ... stockings always. Nothing which would show a kneecap. Gloves and hats (or head coverings) in many areas of the US.

I was recently visiting a church connected with one of our universities and saw more "skin" in church than I had seen on the street (in the secular) world in the past week or weeks.

hummmmmmmmmmmmmm

Naomi

[Dr. Shane]

Many work places do require uniforms but normally for different reasons than schools do. Most everyone working in the medical field wears uniforms. Many working in mechanic garages or in maintanance wear uniforms. Many municipal workers where uniforms. In fact, there are uniform services that provide, rent and launder uniforms for the work place. But that is really getting off into a related but different topic.

School uniforms, first of all, help with discipline. Students know that a certain type of behavior is expected from them when they put on a uniform. They know they are going to school to study and not the local arcade or shopping mall to hang out. The uniforms provide a graphic contrast between the students and the teachers.

Secondly, it makes no distinction between the wealthy and the poor - everyone dress the same. School uniforms can be purchased at Wallmart for no greater cost than any other outfit. I bought a nice blue skirt for my sister-in-law for five dollars and it was part of a school uniform. The wealthy students can still wear nice jewelry (in nonadventist schools) to distinguish themselves but school regulations can handle that too if it becomes a problem.

Thirdly is the whole issue of gang colors. When uniforms are required, gangs cannot distinguish themselves through clothing since everyone dresses the same.

The fourth issue is that of modesty. The school can decide on the level of modesty it desires and choose a uniform accordingly.

In the workplace uniforms are used for other purposes. They are used so management can tell what a person's position is by his or her uniform. They are used for sanitary reasons. They are used for marketing reasons. And some are used for practical reasons. In most cases, employers are not looking to uniforms for displine, avoid class distinction, avoid gang colors or promote modesty.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

I was recently visiting a church connected with one of our universities and saw more "skin" in church than I had seen on the street (in the secular) world in the past week or weeks.

---

I wonder if part of this isn't just because of the fashion of our time. When my wife and I go shopping, most of the nice outfits in most of the stores show a lot of "skin". Since the rest of society is buying it, wearing it and looking nice in it... It isn't that hard for a Christian lady to buy and wear it too.

I have noticed at my own church that many of the ladies are dressed in what most Christians would call sexy clothing. Yet if one goes out to the local shopping mall, they are not dressed in a provacative manner compared with other ladies their own age.

Should Christian men and women have higher standards? I believe so. When studying in Mexico, an Adventist family I knew wouldn't go out in public with me when I showed up in a sleevless shirt. They made me change before we went out. If we want to have the same kind of standards in the NAD, it is something we will need to focus on and hopefully in a nonjudgmental way.

[cricket]

Why does it seem like I am suggesting a far-fetched idea? Everything that's been listed here as "good" reasons for wearing uniforms in schools are equally as valid in the work-place.

Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

[cricket]

Why should it even be a consideration what the adults want? Obviously most adults would not like to be told what to wear. Neither do children. But, if it's good enough for one, why not both?

[Dr. Shane]

Some high schools and middle schools do require uniforms for the reasons I listed.

Now I have seen adults use uniforms in various jobs.

One reason is so they can be recognized for who they are working for. Police, mechanics, painters, construction workers, airline workers, waitresses and retail stores like Walmart have uniforms for this reason - but that is not a reason for school uniforms.

Another reason is for practical reasons. Military personel, fire fighters, toxic waste cleaners, auto racers, bee-keepers and automotive painters are some examples. But again, this is not a reason for school uniforms.

Yet another reason is marketing. Fast food resturant employees wear uniforms for marketing as do professional atheletes, some sales positions and waitresses at Hooters. But this is not a reason for school uniforms either.

So while uniforms in the workplace is useful in many conditions, it is not for the same reason that school uniforms are useful - so it really doesn't have much to do with this topic.

[Bravus]

Our girls did (or in Alex's case, are doing) theirmiddle school in a girls only government school that requires uniform. Cassie complained about the unifrom when she was there, but now complains about having to choose what to wear each day, now that she's at a non-uniform high school... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I think in reality kids get used to and get comfortable with whatever the rules are, but also buck a bit whatever the rules are. A related example: when I was at school the kids were always hassled by the teachers for having their hair too long. When I became a teacher, fashion had changed and we had to hassle them for having it too short.

I did end up quite disliking the Pathfinder uniforms of my youth as being too militaristic - which brings us around to the original thread topic of camo! I guess the pathfinders were dress uniform, not fatigues.

[aldona]

Here in Australia all the SDA schools have a uniform. (as do virtually all private schools and an increasing number of public schools.) I grew up wearing it, and I don't see what the problem is. (My only complaint would be that the schools should make it less expensive, or provide financial assistance to low-income families to buy it.)

When all the students are wearing a uniform:

- school becomes the place where you go to learn, not a fashion parade where you spend all day scrutinizing what your colleagues are wearing.

- choosing what to wear each morning is a no-brainer.

- you can't tell whose family is on unemployment benefits, whose folks are doctors/lawyers and whose daddy works for the Conference office.

- you know you have to behave yourself in the street and on public transport, because it is instantly identifiable which school you go to and the good reputation of the SDA school is on public display.

Every time there was a "casual dress" day, it would invariably consist of the wealthier and prettier girls having one big fashion parade and preening themselves like peacocks, and those of us (like me) who had less fashion sense and whose parents had less disposable income, spending all day dodging the teasing and cruel remarks.

I say: bring on the school uniform!

aldona

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Christine Wall said:

Is it such a bad idea to subject adults to some sort of rules?

Truly, I think it would be a great thing if everyone had a uniform to wear. No one would have to wonder what to put on. No one would stand out in a crowd. No one would have even a moment's hesitation as to what his/her status is.

There would be more of a socialist flair to our societies. Visual as men are, they would no longer be tempted by women in the workforce. Women would no longer be filled with jealousy and envy at what the other women wear.

What a change it could make! Indeed, societies might become so much more controlled that children wouldn't ever need correction: the adults would be behaving as they should have all along and the children would learn from their elders.

Indeed! Uniformity in the workplace first! Uniformity in the schools second!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I understand this is at least partly a TIC reply Christine.

We are writing from different backgrounds, Aldona and I come from a country where school uniforms have been the norm for a lot longer than we remember. Aldona has stated the positives for having them. I can assure you, students here are not repressed or oppressed because they are required to wear uniforms.

You live in a society that does not have widespread school uniforms. You are seeing potential problems that are nonissues in other places. I am not trying to change your mind - but perhaps be aware that school uniforms serve a useful purpose without becoming a psychological burden here.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

So while uniforms in the workplace is useful in many conditions, it is not for the same reason that school uniforms are useful - so it really doesn't have much to do with this topic.

---

Yes! Uniforms in the workplace have been useful for many situations; and, typically, these uniform requirements have been serving differing purposes than do school uniforms.

You are missing my point entirely.

What I am trying to say is, if it is a good idea to have uniforms in school to curb the cliques, gangs, indecency, jealousy, and envy--then why is it not a good idea to have these same policies in effect in the work place? Most assuredly, our places of work have cliques, gangs (albeit underhanded, sneaky sorts of "gangs"), indecency, jealousy and envy.

If uniforms are to alleviate some of the difficulties such as these in schools, why wouldn't uniform requirements be just as sensible in the work force?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

if it is a good idea to have uniforms in school to curb the cliques, gangs, indecency, jealousy, and envy--then why is it not a good idea to have these same policies in effect in the work place?

---

If a company feels it is in the best interest of its clients to have the employees wear uniforms, it can do so. The government certainly has no place in do so. For a number of years many stock brokerage firms on Wall Street allowed their workers to dress casual and they actually saw a change in habits and business - even though most transactions are done over the phone so the client never sees the broker. So a few years ago they started enforcing a stricter dress code. That be as it is, it is still a seperate issue from school uniforms.

[cricket]

If the government has no place in mandating uniforms for adults, then why should the government have any say in mandating uniforms for children?

In America, people can begin working at 14. They can work full-time once they are 16. If we are to suggest that these young people are mature enough to enter the work force (and thus, by the assumptions presented here: mature enough to choose sensible, appropriate attire), it is logical to assume that they are mature enough to choose what they would like to wear to school.

Elementary schools do not typically have gang-related problems or problems stemming from fashion envy. In fact, most of our societal problems (crime) come from adults.

It seems to me that school uniforms will not be the resolve of any of these problems. Rather, the resolve might come from mandated adult uniforms with a trickle-down effect of societal control.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

dgrimm60 said:

HEY TO CHRISTINE WALL

IN MOST FOREIGN countries the students have been

wearing uniforms for a long time that ever student expects ii. the catholic church school have had unforms for years also.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Without doing some research on the subject of uniforms in the school and workplace, I do know it is not a new idea, theory or pratice.

I think it is a fair statement to say that uniforms have long been used in various societies to designate the status of the individual. This designation could have to do with criminal potential, social status, employment ranking, etc.

Soon enough we will all have a designation ... in the forehead or the hand.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" />I have been contacted a couple of times by the airlines offering to do a "free" scan of my eyes to reduce the time necessary for airport security screening. We are no longer "private" individuals, we are becoming a matter of public record.

I realize that I've made this statement many times before, but you cannot pass enough laws to legislate morals, ethics or safety.

Just my :2cents:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

every place is trying to protect the people if it be students or workers.

with what ever mean possible

right or wrong in our thinking

that is what sin as done to our society.

dgrimm60

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Amen!

Naomi

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

Secondly, it makes no distinction between the wealthy and the poor - everyone dress the same. School uniforms can be purchased at Wallmart for no greater cost than any other outfit. I bought a nice blue skirt for my sister-in-law for five dollars and it was part of a school uniform. The wealthy students can still wear nice jewelry (in nonadventist schools) to distinguish themselves but school regulations can handle that too if it becomes a problem.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane, I have to question the statement that it makes no distinction between the wealthy & the poor.

Yes, they can be purchased at WallMart. But, and this is in a SDA School setting ... try telling a 12 year old that her shirt from Walley World is just as good (and no one can tell the difference) from the designer blue shirt worn by other girls. Or, the skirts or slacks. Or, the shoes or socks. Colors can be the same, but materials, cut and quality are not the same.

Uniforms may serve other reasons but the distinction from rich to poor is not one of them.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Naomi

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Uniforms may serve other reasons but the distinction from rich to poor is not one of them.

---

According to what Sister Aldona shared with us earlier, they served that purpose in her school. We may be getting a dress code confused with a uniform. A dress code may read, blue skirt and white shirt (which leaves it open to various styles and brand names) while a uniform will be specific as to the color, brand name, style, etc. If you visit a Catholic school you will see all the students in the same uniform. Many of the uniforms for girls have both pants and skirts so you may see some girls wearing pants and others skirts, all the pants are the same and all the skirts are the same.

Now some of the schools can have expensive uniforms. And some schools require the students to buy their uniforms from the school. In these cases, assistance should be given to the poorer children. However if a school wants to keep the uniform cost low they can simply specify a style and brand name sold at Wal-mart and require that the school's patch be sown on the shirt pocket or sleeve.

The number of US public schools requiring uniforms is small but increasing. There is simply no harm that comes of it. It only results in positive results for the school and students.

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Naomi said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

Secondly, it makes no distinction between the wealthy and the poor - everyone dress the same. School uniforms can be purchased at Wallmart for no greater cost than any other outfit. I bought a nice blue skirt for my sister-in-law for five dollars and it was part of a school uniform. The wealthy students can still wear nice jewelry (in nonadventist schools) to distinguish themselves but school regulations can handle that too if it becomes a problem.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane, I have to question the statement that it makes no distinction between the wealthy & the poor.

Yes, they can be purchased at WallMart. But, and this is in a SDA School setting ... try telling a 12 year old that her shirt from Walley World is just as good (and no one can tell the difference) from the designer blue shirt worn by other girls. Or, the skirts or slacks. Or, the shoes or socks. Colors can be the same, but materials, cut and quality are not the same.

Uniforms may serve other reasons but the distinction from rich to poor is not one of them.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Naomi

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If it comes in different versions from different stores at different prices, it ain't a uniform.

Here there is only ONE brand of clothing approved as the school uniform. One style, one fabric, one color (different sizes of course). It is purchased from only one outlet (in Melbourne that was Victoria Schoolwear when I was at school) and costs the same for everybody. But then, those freedom-loving Americans would probably cry foul over that being anti-competitive...

(This is not directed at Naomi, just a general comment about the direction the whole thread is heading...) I cannot believe we have come to the point of comparing school uniforms to the mark of the beast. What about the seal of God? Isn't that a distinguishing mark that is given to us to wear?

When school is out, kids can "express themselves" by wearing anything they please. At school, they are there to learn, not to take part in a fashion parade. If they are all dressed exactly the same then that is probably the easiest and most practical way to take appearance off the agenda.

I've seen how kids behave in and out of uniform, and I can assure you, uniforms DO abolish the distinction between rich and poor students. Probably the ONLY visible way of abolishing that distinction.

aldona

[Dottie]

I haven't been around to read most of the posts from the last three weeks, but I really have a gripe about uniforms in our schools.

Our children are required to wear uniforms according to the colors that a committee decided upon. But, and this is not a large "but," the uniforms must be bought from a local distributor of a uniform company. Therefore, all the clothes are of the same quality and cut as required. Some of the choices are strange. Such as one color of shirt is one type of knit, whereas another color is another fabric (the sales person at the company told me about the committee).

Here's my real gripe: the teachers are not required to wear uniforms. Some days, it seems as if they don't even have a dress code, i.e., very tight tops and pants on the women (I'm sure the teen boys like that!), wearing clogs with no socks, when the students are required to wear closed toe and heel and socks. And I could go on, but you get the idea. Same old double standard. . .