DCPS considering doing away with uniforms?

[Anonymous]

I don't like them due to cost. A lot of schools want the logo shirts which are $$$.

[Anonymous]

My title I elementary has tons of PK3,4 and K uniforms and very little for older kids. Where the need is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My title I elementary has tons of PK3,4 and K uniforms and very little for older kids. Where the need is.

Good point, same with ours. I wonder if that's something the PTO could help with.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who was homeless at one point and had to switch to the closest school. She had to buy all new uniforms for her kid and it was a huge burden.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't understand this line of thought. Your kids need clothes for school you are either spending money on having say 7-14 or more street clothes outfits. Or if they wear uniforms you by 5-10 uniforms and 5-3 weekend /play clothes.
With all of the insanely cheap places to get new and used uniforms for the same prices as regular clothes it evens out. Also nothing saying kids can't wear uniform short or pants on the weekends.
Also, most schools do offer to help families get new or used uniforms if needed. Heck schools help with coats and such too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who was homeless at one point and had to switch to the closest school. She had to buy all new uniforms for her kid and it was a huge burden.

Then all dcps should have the same uniforms. And or families should be allowed to wear any color uniform style polos / tops and pants tan or navy. Problem solved for switching schools.
Also, if a school's would help families with uniforms that would good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

again, people have to clothe their children in any event! I have yet to see a persuasive argument that uniforms add in any significant way to the financial burden.

[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.

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.

You can get used uniforms or donated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who was homeless at one point and had to switch to the closest school. She had to buy all new uniforms for her kid and it was a huge burden.

Then all dcps should have the same uniforms. And or families should be allowed to wear any color uniform style polos / tops and pants tan or navy. Problem solved for switching schools.
Also, if a school's would help families with uniforms that would good.

I think really this is all just an argument for letting each school decide. If a school sees that uniforms are a financial burden and it is not able to support those families that say they can't afford them - then they can get rid of the policy. If a school likes the uniforms and feels confident there's no financial burden and can supply uniforms to all those in need - then they can keep it.

[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.

I have two kids and this has not been my experience. The kids either wear their uniforms for 2-3 years or if they outgrow them quickly, they can be passed down to a younger sibling. My kids rarely change out of uniforms in the evenings and you can get away with as few as 3 sets of clothes each, if they wear them twice before laundering and you do laundry twice a week. I mean, if a struggling parent can't manage to clothe their kids properly, whether or not they are required to wear uniforms won't make much difference. (I agree that if a school wants their logo on the uniforms or has other specific guidelines, then it's a different story. But if you have a loose code, like for example a green or white polo and green or khaki bottom, there is a lot you can do with that, and people won't know if you are reusing same clothes day to day, unlike with regular clothes, which people don't tend to buy multiples for.)

[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.

I have two kids and this has not been my experience. The kids either wear their uniforms for 2-3 years or if they outgrow them quickly, they can be passed down to a younger sibling. My kids rarely change out of uniforms in the evenings and you can get away with as few as 3 sets of clothes each, if they wear them twice before laundering and you do laundry twice a week. I mean, if a struggling parent can't manage to clothe their kids properly, whether or not they are required to wear uniforms won't make much difference. (I agree that if a school wants their logo on the uniforms or has other specific guidelines, then it's a different story. But if you have a loose code, like for example a green or white polo and green or khaki bottom, there is a lot you can do with that, and people won't know if you are reusing same clothes day to day, unlike with regular clothes, which people don't tend to buy multiples for.)

This. Shorts last 2-3 years for sure. Pants we have usually but not always been able to get 2 years out of. Shirts definitely 2 years. Buy everything a bit big! And of course if you have multiple kids you'd hand them down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My title I elementary has tons of PK3,4 and K uniforms and very little for older kids. Where the need is.

Good point, same with ours. I wonder if that's something the PTO could help with.

I just got rid of about 20 uniforms for older kids and I'm not rich. I got them all new and on sale to get ready. DC grew out of them. There is no lack for free uniforms, there's lack of organizations. Why not have a big uniform bank. Parents donate and schools pick them up as need arises.

[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.

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.

You can get used uniforms or donated.

you can get any clothing used or donated

[Anonymous]

My issue with this debate is that essentially what many of you are saying is that poor children should be happy to just wear their uniform all the time. In my experience, as a poor kid myself and then as the mom of a kid in a uniform school in DCPS, children would like to wear a Spider-Man shirt or a dress that’s not navy and collared or jeans instead of khakis. Suggesting that families ignore that desire and prioritize uniforms seems to me to be yet another way to make poor people feel crappy. Sure, kids need clothing. They need clothing that is clean, appropriately sized and weather appropriate. It doesn’t have to be a school uniform. If the school did not require uniforms, children and families would still be buying one set of clothing. They would not also have to sacrifice their individual preferences as you are suggesting. When my kid graduated from her uniform school and started at a school that doesn’t require uniforms, she was very happy to start being more experimental with fashion. I don’t think that should be limited to kids whose families can afford to buy an entire second set of clothing.

[Anonymous]

If uniforms are so great, why do virtually none of the city’s best performing DCPS schools have them?