Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Citing it as "necessary to ensure preservation of the public welfare in general," D.C. Public Schools passed an emergency rule to the D.C. Register yesterday, revoking "personal determination of appearance, including styles of hair and dress" as a First Amendment-protected right for students. Chancellor Michelle Rhee also posted a revision to the current discipline code, which would -- supposedly -- lay down much harsher punishments for students who disregard current rules concerning clothing.
One can argue until blue in the face about DCPS' legal ability to dictate a system-wide dress code (the First Amendment Center features a very readable primer on the history of such challenges to uniforms and school censorship, for those interested) -- but this action simply opens the door for individual principals to make such decisions about their own individual schools, instead of calling for a blanket application of a uniform code.
Of course, the common sense behind the idea is that school uniforms help to stifle violence related to material possessions and reduce the proliferation of gang colors and clothing. Whether that's a legitimate empirical conclusion is far from clear. The District saw a similar push for a universal dress code helmed by then-Mayor Marion Barry in the 1980s -- you'd have a tough time finding anyone who thought that those reforms were a sweeping success. Also, Rhee's new "tougher" discipline code leaves much to be desired: an in-school suspension on the fourth offense seems, well, pretty spineless.
What's your take? Will uniforms in some D.C. schools help to curb student violence and crime, or is it just another stop-gap solution to a complicated problem?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
can children of low-income families qualify for subsidized uniforms, then?
A lot of first amendment talk gets thrown around in the debate over school uniforms? But just how many high schoolers are making a reasoned political or religious argument with their current outfits? It seems to me that an orderly school would trump whatever thought that a Che t-shirt from Urban Outfitters might provide.
I hear this argument all the time, but is there really any evidence anywhere that indicates the first amendment actually applies to clothing and other bodily adornments and not just verbal speech? As far as I know, that argument is wishful thinking more than grounded in legal foundation.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Noted, but that seems somewhat narrow. How do you decide what is symbolic speech like protesting a war vs. a disruptive piece of clothing with no intenton other than to distract? In this case, the armband was a substitute for verbal expression, but I don't get the feeling that could be applied to block a blanket policy such as this. I could be wrong, I am not a lawyer..
Having taught in both situations, uniforms do indeed cut down on behavioral problems. If a kid thinks that's a violation of his/her rights, I say, "If that's the worst thing you got goin' wrong in your life, quit bitchin'."
As for ISS on the 4th offense, please do your homework (heh heh...): this is for a first level infraction, which is defined, rather widely for this venue, as minor disruptions and offenses: talking back, refusing to put away cellphone, being late to class, etc. ISS is employed once previous interventions (e.g. talking to student, assigning detention, calling home) have proved ineffective. More serious offenses can go immediately to suspension (or expulsion, if severe enough).
Surely you didn't think a kid had 3 shots at nailing a teacher in the head with a Chem book before getting suspended, did you?
This is outrageous! No thongs? No ass pants? No booty shorts? And those pants are hardly what I'd call "poopy." This is the worst blow to adolescent personal expression since Fred Sullivan made the Rolling Stones replace the word "night" with "time" when they sang "Let's Spend the Night Together." This tragic stifling of teenage reliance on fashion instead of articulateness will only result in long-winded but eloquent jeremiads to all the major newspaper ombudsmen. I sincerely doubt DC is ready for such a loquacious outpouring of youthful rhetoric.
I agree! What the hell good is a school uniform if it isn't HOT!
Ed Sullivan. Not Fred.
Collared shirts stifle creativity.
I like the idea of uniforms, but don't have a good answer for who should pay for them. I think it's an unreasonable additive cost to families, but once its socialized for several years it becomes anticipated and the burden is less. Even so, you'd probably have to subsidize the cost of them so all could afford them.
As Aaron noted, the First Amendment Center has a fair overview.
This issue comes up frequently. Jacobs v. Clark County is a typical example and has the arguments that both sides usually make.
While I don't think subsidizing uniforms is necessarily a bad idea, I suspect most families would save money by not buying expensive clothes and shoes so their kids can be in the cool crowd. (Yes, the kids would still want it for after school, but you'd still buy less of it. And have even more of an argument for just saying no.)
My kid attends a DCPS school that has a dress code, and I very much appreciate the policy, in part for the reasons you write.
Reality check: high school boys and girls' uniform shirts are ~$20. Pants for boys or girls are ~$25. Skirts are ~$36.
So the cost is no more, and in many cases much less, than what a parent would spend on clothing anyway. Unless they planned on having their kids walk around naked.
I dunno...given the cost of the cars I see every morning dropping kids off at school, not to mention the cell phones and iPods they carry into class, I have a hard time accepting the "unreasonable additive cost" argument.
Poverty isn't the only the problem, ya know. Sometimes it's priority, too.
fashion fascism
School uniforms only get you ready for the rest of your life: since when did I get to evoke the first amendment for the infringement business attire has on my freedom of expression?
How much for the "Jesus Loves Bongs" version of the uniform?