DCPS considering doing away with uniforms?

[Anonymous]

Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

Interesting. My kid has been at two different T1s (one barely; one really) and perhaps we've just been lucky by how supportive/available this kind of thing has been at them. In my kid's PK3 class, the teacher just asked anyone who grew out of/had no use for an old uniform to give it to her and, as a result, had a ginormous stockpile of them in the classroom. Sent home a bunch w/ some kids "just in case" they needed them. Asked at parent-teacher conferences if kids had any older siblings who could use the ones she got in bigger sizes. At our current school, there is a physical closet w/ uniforms and lost and found and parents are free to go in and grab any uniforms they need (+ any unclaimed lost and found stuff at certain times). Like my kid got soaked one day in a freak thing at school and they just had her grab one (we obviously returned it the next day)... but there's no oversight or delay in accessing the closet. We've dropped off our old uniforms there a few times and most of the stuff has been gone by the next time I've had occasion to go in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

But the kids have to buy clothes, and the uniforms aren't actually that much more expensive than anything else. You can buy a full uniform set for $14 from brands like Cat & Jack.

$14 for 4 changes of clothes x 3 kids - $168. And if your kid outgrows the uniform, they have to buy them again. No kid is going to wear their uniform outside of school, so you buy two sets of clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

That makes wearing uniforms seem punitive--kids at "bad schools" need to wear one in case they're implicated in criminal mischief.

[Anonymous]

Whenever I go to the Goodwill up on South Dakota Ave, I notice a bunch of uniform components for sale for peanuts on the kids racks. The sort of basic uniforms worn in DC schools aren't more expensive than other clothes, and most public schools are flexible about how the kids wear them (really just a color code). In a diverse school, uniforms can really help level the playing field in how a mixed group of high SES and low SES kids dress. Moreover, they get help kids get into business mode as they get ready for school - I put on my uniform and now it's time to focus and behave.

There's a reason that most schools in the UK and the British Commonwealth countries, both government and independent, have always gone with strict school uniforms, and it's not because they're pointless.

Uniforms are catching on around the US these days because they're practical, and not just in urban centers. My sibling's children wear uniforms at their upscale public school in FL - their school system just adopted them for the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

But the kids have to buy clothes, and the uniforms aren't actually that much more expensive than anything else. You can buy a full uniform set for $14 from brands like Cat & Jack.

$14 for 4 changes of clothes x 3 kids - $168. And if your kid outgrows the uniform, they have to buy them again. No kid is going to wear their uniform outside of school, so you buy two sets of clothes.

Ok well if the parents decide they need to have 2 sets of clothes for their kids, that's their own money management issue. My DS wears his uniform all day until he goes to bed. Then he has literally 2 pairs of pants and a few shirts for the weekend. Clothing is CHEAP. I seriously doubt this is a financial barrier, unless the schools are picking colors or items that cannot be purchased at Target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

That makes wearing uniforms seem punitive--kids at "bad schools" need to wear one in case they're implicated in criminal mischief.

What if that uniform made a kid a victim rather than a perpectrator?

Furthermore, why is it anybody's right to know that information? Witnesses could give a physical description like any other assault investigations. We stress being careful with information shared on social media because it can have IRL consequences. Here'a piece of information being broadcast just by stepping out the door.

[Anonymous]

Our charter is 55% at risk, but also a large percent of higher SES gentrifier types, We have a uniform but it is VERY loosely enforced. Sometimes kids are in full uniform, sometimes a uniform shirt and regular bottoms, rarely not at all. That seems like a good balance. If a family runs out of clean uniforms, then can wear street clothes and/or similarly colored pieces and not look too out of place. But a family can also send their kid in uniforms every day instead of obviously second hand regular clothes. Our school also has a huge uniform stockpile in the admin office and encourages ALL parents to take from it. So my kid is wearing hand me down shirts the same as the other kids.

To respond to other posters, yes, Cat and Jack uniform pieces may be as cheap as regular clothes, but many families are getting their regular clothes from donations or thrift stores. So $1 for a Value Village shirt versus $4 for a new uniform polo adds up across multiple kids. And to the white uniform poster, I would prefer white. Ours are a light color but not white, and I'd love to be able to just bleach everything. I gave up stain treating every darn shirt and now my kid's clothes are stained to hell. So are everyone else's so it's whatever, but still, bleaching would be awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

But the kids have to buy clothes, and the uniforms aren't actually that much more expensive than anything else. You can buy a full uniform set for $14 from brands like Cat & Jack.

$14 for 4 changes of clothes x 3 kids - $168. And if your kid outgrows the uniform, they have to buy them again. No kid is going to wear their uniform outside of school, so you buy two sets of clothes.

Ok well if the parents decide they need to have 2 sets of clothes for their kids, that's their own money management issue. My DS wears his uniform all day until he goes to bed. Then he has literally 2 pairs of pants and a few shirts for the weekend. Clothing is CHEAP. I seriously doubt this is a financial barrier, unless the schools are picking colors or items that cannot be purchased at Target.

1) Many of the Title I schools are in deep southeast. You think there's a Target down there that people can just pop into for Cat and Jack?
2) It is not normal that your kid has two pairs of non-uniform pants and a few shirts. Most people, even at uniform schools, also have other clothing. In theory, yes, people can just put all their money into school uniforms, but that's not what's happening for most people.
3) Each child realistically needs a clean uniform for each school day of the week. As PP mentioned, kids outgrow their uniforms (and/or destroy them) in the course of the year. It is a recurring cost.
4) For the families I am thinking of in Ward 8, the idea of being required to spend $168 on clothing for their children, possibly multiple times per year, is a crazy amount of money. That's some people's entire disposable income for the month. We're not talking about people who have $168 after all the bills are paid, the 401k is maxed out and the 529s are fully funded. We're talking about people with no savings at all, with housing assistance and food assistance and childcare vouchers. DCPS's way of paying for that is to suggest an onerous process that takes a really long time.

-social worker in DC, formerly in DC schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

That makes wearing uniforms seem punitive--kids at "bad schools" need to wear one in case they're implicated in criminal mischief.

What if that uniform made a kid a victim rather than a perpectrator?

Furthermore, why is it anybody's right to know that information? Witnesses could give a physical description like any other assault investigations. We stress being careful with information shared on social media because it can have IRL consequences. Here'a piece of information being broadcast just by stepping out the door.

Exactly the case here: both had uniforms, Metro speculated the victim's uniform made them a target, though neither had a school logo. Nonetheless, the Metro police knew the school (and grade) by the colors worn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

That makes wearing uniforms seem punitive--kids at "bad schools" need to wear one in case they're implicated in criminal mischief.

What if that uniform made a kid a victim rather than a perpectrator?

Furthermore, why is it anybody's right to know that information? Witnesses could give a physical description like any other assault investigations. We stress being careful with information shared on social media because it can have IRL consequences. Here'a piece of information being broadcast just by stepping out the door.

Exactly the case here: both had uniforms, Metro speculated the victim's uniform made them a target, though neither had a school logo. Nonetheless, the Metro police knew the school (and grade) by the colors worn.

again - why is this anybody's business? If I worked for ICE I'd probably tuck away my badge on Metro and I wouldn't wear one of those windbreakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids I know were assaulted on metro by kids from another school. The first thing Metro police asked the victims was -- what did the school uniform look like. It helps them to know which school to chat with about student behavior.

That makes wearing uniforms seem punitive--kids at "bad schools" need to wear one in case they're implicated in criminal mischief.

What if that uniform made a kid a victim rather than a perpectrator?

Furthermore, why is it anybody's right to know that information? Witnesses could give a physical description like any other assault investigations. We stress being careful with information shared on social media because it can have IRL consequences. Here'a piece of information being broadcast just by stepping out the door.

Exactly the case here: both had uniforms, Metro speculated the victim's uniform made them a target, though neither had a school logo. Nonetheless, the Metro police knew the school (and grade) by the colors worn.

Ugh, another reason to do away with school uniforms--so kids from rival schools can't target each other (or be targeted).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

But the kids have to buy clothes, and the uniforms aren't actually that much more expensive than anything else. You can buy a full uniform set for $14 from brands like Cat & Jack.

$14 for 4 changes of clothes x 3 kids - $168. And if your kid outgrows the uniform, they have to buy them again. No kid is going to wear their uniform outside of school, so you buy two sets of clothes.

Wait, what? I'm guessing you're not a parent of a kid at a school that wears uniforms. Every kid I know wears their uniform afterschool. First, the vast majority of the kids you seem concerned about attend afterschool until 6 pm. So they're changing out of their uniform and into non-PJs at like 6:30 when they get home? For like 2 hours max? Even if that's true, presumably they can wear 1-2 sets of clothes all week since they're wearing it for like 2 hours, probably mostly in their own home. FWIW, my kids absolutely wear their uniforms after school until they change into PJs like 90% of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I dislike the fact that for the most part WOTP doesn't have to wear them, and EOTP does.

I personally don't like uniforms; they just seem sterile and impractical in the case of our IB's white tops/navy bottoms--never made sense to me for little kids to wear white tops that get massively stained and grungy after a few months. Plus, I just don't like the idea of public schools enforcing a uniform dress code. I'd prefer either all DCPS wears them, or they all don't.

To be fair, they can’t technically enforce. There is no ramifications of a student is not in “uniform” or colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it gives the schools a bit of school spirit, and as far as I know it's not really an economic burden on anyone. I think it should be a school-by-school decision. Not sure why it would have to be a policy imposed by the top.

It's an economic burden on a fair number of people, PP. I have always felt that if DCPS is requiring students to come wearing uniforms, they should be required to pay for those uniforms, because it is a burden for families with very limited incomes.

But every Title 1 I'm aware of has a huge supply of uniforms that it can and does give to such families. Way more awkward to take more identifiable clothing donations and clothes are an economic burden in general. Also, the disparity between clothing is real. In my kid's T1 PK4, Fridays mean pristine Boden outfits on half the class and a small set of kids in obvious hand-me-downs or still in their uniforms.

Many schools have uniform closets that kids can get uniforms from, but it's not unlimited. The "support" that is available takes months to access. As a former school social worker, what I will tell you is that for families with multiple children in a school, the burden is pretty great. It may not be a big deal for you to drop $100 on uniforms for the year, but if you have 3 kids of 3 different sizes and need uniforms for all of them and you are also only making about $500/month, it really is a challenge. And that doesn't even touch the cost of keeping the uniforms clean enough to wear. I think that uniforms do solve the problem of your kid wearing pristine Boden and their friends wearing ratty hand-me-downs, but the reality is that most families need to purchase uniforms at the start of the school year, and many of them do not have the money to do so.

But the kids have to buy clothes, and the uniforms aren't actually that much more expensive than anything else. You can buy a full uniform set for $14 from brands like Cat & Jack.

No. Kids do NOT have to buy clothes. I have means and I haven’t purchased new school clothes for my kids in over 8 years. They both get hand me downs from cousins or I buy lots of clothes from clothing exchanges. I don’t wish to buy new clothes for the sake of buying new clothes. It’s a waste of money and bad for the environment.

I also have friends that are without means that rely on hand me downs and buy on Monday’s at the thrift store. Your post wreaks of entitlement. $14 will fee my family dinner for 2 nights.