Why are some schools non-uniform wearing and others uniform required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be provocative: white parents don't want the uniforms, so when you see your uniformed DCPS switch to non-uniformed, you'll know that you've reached the tipping point.

Black parent here. This is why I don’t like the idea of uniforms, and the EOTP vs. WOTP divide in this—too much tied to race in DC. Also, uniforms don’t improve outcomes in low-performing schools, as had been previously thought.

Good point. We now know that uniforms don't control behavior. The optics are bad that the wealthier WOTP schools don't have uniforms but some of the EOTP do. I don't like uniforms. To me, it's a visual reminder/dividing line to kids that they're not in the same kind of school as the kids at wealthier schools. Yes, in DC this is tied to race. I understand that some private schools have uniforms, but the kids in DCPS with uniforms know quite well they're not in privates.

Some posters have equated no uniforms with catering to snowflakes and having uniforms with fitting in with the lower income families. Not every lower income family has the same needs. Surely some lower income families have children with sensory issues too or would prefer to not wear uniforms. Lower Income isn't a group with all the same needs.

I'm sure I'll get excoriated for this, but I would have serious pause about sending my kids to a school with uniforms. To me, it's indicative of the school culture in a negative way, and is tied to lower expectations for socio emotional skills and other UMC expectations. I'm not saying I would never do it, but it would be an issue for me. Luckily we're happy with our uniform-free WOTP school. I'm also not looking for a bunch of responses telling me how great the socio emotional skills are at their kids' uniformed EOTP school. I'm happy for every family that is pleased with their school, but this is how I read the signals.

PP here. I agree with much of your account, esp. the bolded. I will say that our school is a great school in a UMC EOTP neighborhood, although fairly traditional. However, I do worry that a few in the neighborhood judge the school by the uniforms, and choose to send their kids to private or charters (their loss). There's also someone who always posts here re: Hardy's uniforms--even though it sounds like it's getting a lot of IB buy-in recently, some people still judge it by its uniform policy.

IMO, uniforms are pretty paternalistic and were employed to try to control behavior in majority AA schools--I know many newcomers to DC like them for valid reasons, but I'd just as soon be done with them unless all schools, including WOTP, have to wear them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another white high income family here. My kid is at a title DCPS and wears a uniform. I LOVE it! Every morning is so easy. No comments or questions about other kids clothes or wanting certain brands etc. kids can and should express themselves in other ways than clothes in elem school anyhow. I think parents are nuts, and insecure, when they argue against uniforms.

You must have girls because when my boys were in a nonuniform school, dressing was a no brainer -- gym shorts/pants, t shirts and athletic shoes. With uniforms, dressing takes longer (my boy cannot buckle a dang belt or tie shoes in under 10 minutes, ugh), I get more complaints, and worst of all by a long shot in my world: I have to iron!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people associate the plain pants plus plain polo shirt look with poor/inner city schools.

+1

LOL, I work in IT and this is the uniform of every man I work with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another white high income family here. My kid is at a title DCPS and wears a uniform. I LOVE it! Every morning is so easy. No comments or questions about other kids clothes or wanting certain brands etc. kids can and should express themselves in other ways than clothes in elem school anyhow. I think parents are nuts, and insecure, when they argue against uniforms.

You must have girls because when my boys were in a nonuniform school, dressing was a no brainer -- gym shorts/pants, t shirts and athletic shoes. With uniforms, dressing takes longer (my boy cannot buckle a dang belt or tie shoes in under 10 minutes, ugh), I get more complaints, and worst of all by a long shot in my world: I have to iron!!!!!!

What are you ironing? At my school you just have to wear a certain color top and bottom. I see lots of kids wearing athletic style bottoms in the correct color. The school also sells t-shirts that are acceptable as uniform tops. There is no requirement to wear a belt or certain shoes.

[Anonymous]

No ironing! Our school is green top and khaki bottoms. There is a free uniform swap giveaway every year so you can get uniforms free. Thebpolosninbought online for like $6 each and khaki skits from amazon were $12. She wears all of it two years. I can’t believe parents are so insecure that they would not choose a school because of the uniform. The truthnisntheybwould be fine with uniforms at a private achool and see it as a class indicator. But not in public schools. This is so dumb. Uniforms are the best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how once a kid is at the "great" private school this never comes up. I guess DCPS should feel privileged to have my gifted kid among it's ranks. How dare they ask us to confirm...SMH

There are only 3 or 4 great private schools that require uniforms. None of them start in preK/K.

There are many middling or crappy parochial schools that require uniforms. There are a couple of sports powerhouse Catholic high schools with "eh" academics that require uniforms.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people associate the plain pants plus plain polo shirt look with poor/inner city schools.

+1

LOL, I work in IT and this is the uniform of every man I work with.

Reminds me of the Charlottesville Nazis outfit.

[Anonymous]

uniforms are pretty paternalistic and were employed to try to control behavior in majority AA schools-

This, and this alone. It's the truth, and the legacy of the "khaki+polo" look should be enough for us to dismantle this conceit.

We've lately eliminated so many visual reminders of the separate treatment of certain "races;" why do we allow this one to persist citywide? PPs' joy in not having to argue with their 6 yr old daughters every morning about outfits is not a compelling reason, btw.

— white mother, long-time resident of Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be provocative: white parents don't want the uniforms, so when you see your uniformed DCPS switch to non-uniformed, you'll know that you've reached the tipping point.

Black parent here. This is why I don’t like the idea of uniforms, and the EOTP vs. WOTP divide in this—too much tied to race in DC. Also, uniforms don’t improve outcomes in low-performing schools, as had been previously thought.

White parent here who is fine with uniforms EOTP because clearly they are important to others and I am happy to defer to those who care about this.

Another white parent from EOTP and I love uniforms and they are very important to me.

[Anonymous]

Uniforms have their uses...
Lower SES kids who don't have the latest expensive new duds don't stand out like sore thumbs and find themselves ostracized or bullied.

[Anonymous]

I wish all schools had uniforms, it's an equalizer and so much easier on the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uniforms have their uses...
Lower SES kids who don't have the latest expensive new duds don't stand out like sore thumbs and find themselves ostracized or bullied.

And high SES kids get off their high horse a bit and are reminded that they are not better than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uniforms have their uses...
Lower SES kids who don't have the latest expensive new duds don't stand out like sore thumbs and find themselves ostracized or bullied.

Actually, instead of getting bullied about their clothes they get bullied because of their shoes (And1 vs Jordans). Anyone who thinks uniforms are a great equalizer is kidding themselves.

[Anonymous]

Uniforms as an equalizer is something old out of touch people tell themselves that every kid knows is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uniforms have their uses...
Lower SES kids who don't have the latest expensive new duds don't stand out like sore thumbs and find themselves ostracized or bullied.

Actually, instead of getting bullied about their clothes they get bullied because of their shoes (And1 vs Jordans). Anyone who thinks uniforms are a great equalizer is kidding themselves.

You'd rather be bullied for the whole outfit?