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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'd rather bullying not happen at all, but it does. I think it's ridiculous to use bullying as a reason to enforce the wearing of uniforms in lower SES schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'd rather bullying not happen at all, but it does. I think it's ridiculous to use bullying as a reason to enforce the wearing of uniforms in lower SES schools.

+1. Also, there's an assumption that kids from affluent families wear expensive clothes. We recently switched from a DCPS to private, and I haven't noticed a difference in kids' clothes. Kids in the new private tend to wear more athletic/athleisure clothes because they have a lot more recess, but not any flashy brands--Gap t-shirts, soccer t-shirts, nondescript/non-brand name stuff. So I don't think the worry that affluent kids will wear brand-name clothes should be used as an excuse to employ strict uniform policies in EOTP schools.

[Anonymous]

Gentrification has brought enough change and tension to our school already. I strongly prefer to defer to lower-income preferences where I can.

Uniforms are actually cheaper in the long run. Smaller quantity of clothing needed because no need to be different and fashionable each day; may be able to use clothes from year to year depending on child's growth; secondary market/swap club for outgrown items.

[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

The Bullis School's uniform is just that though. Just say it's the skin color in those plain pants plus plain polo shirt that makes a difference.

[Anonymous]

Do all the kids who wear the khakis wear them equally tight? Is that just how clothes for middle and high schoolers is now?

[Anonymous]

At Brent we have uniforms, but the rules are pretty lax. You can get away with wearing pretty much any white/khaki/green article of clothing. So it doesn't feel like kids are being policed. I think my DS would have been fine with or without, but my DD definitely benefits from the uniforms. She goes through phases where she only wears a certain item of clothing, and we just buy three sets and do laundry twice a week.

And you can definitely get away with never buying new, because people sell clothes that kids run out of via the local listserv or through the school (and it's pay as you wish).

I know at other schools people donate uniforms to the school so that families who can't afford to buy new can pick out what they like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At Brent we have uniforms, but the rules are pretty lax. You can get away with wearing pretty much any white/khaki/green article of clothing. So it doesn't feel like kids are being policed. I think my DS would have been fine with or without, but my DD definitely benefits from the uniforms. She goes through phases where she only wears a certain item of clothing, and we just buy three sets and do laundry twice a week.

And you can definitely get away with never buying new, because people sell clothes that kids run out of via the local listserv or through the school (and it's pay as you wish).

I know at other schools people donate uniforms to the school so that families who can't afford to buy new can pick out what they like.

And if you went to school in Europe this would just be the way it is, kids complain and parent love them but folks don't spend too much time debating it. Helps with school pride and issues outside the school building. On the bus home everyone knows which schools you went to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At Brent we have uniforms, but the rules are pretty lax. You can get away with wearing pretty much any white/khaki/green article of clothing. So it doesn't feel like kids are being policed. I think my DS would have been fine with or without, but my DD definitely benefits from the uniforms. She goes through phases where she only wears a certain item of clothing, and we just buy three sets and do laundry twice a week.

And you can definitely get away with never buying new, because people sell clothes that kids run out of via the local listserv or through the school (and it's pay as you wish).

I know at other schools people donate uniforms to the school so that families who can't afford to buy new can pick out what they like.

And if you went to school in Europe this would just be the way it is, kids complain and parent love them but folks don't spend too much time debating it. Helps with school pride and issues outside the school building. On the bus home everyone knows which schools you went to

Non sequitur—sounds hunky-dory but this is not Europe, and decisions about uniforms here in DC reflect racial differences among different schools, with Rock Creek Park as the typical dividing line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some of us have moved past prek-k phase and see reality. We've done DCPS, Charters, and privates. I doubt you have any idea that the impact of kids not having fashionable clothing has on them. Kids get bullied and some just fight out of frustration. Oh, learn how to iron your kid's clothes. That's just sad. can One can always be neat regardless of what you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All those white parents at Washington Latin and various private and parochial schools have no issues with it. And neither do I.

Maury and Brent also have uniforms and white parents are totally good with them.

[Anonymous]

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.

Correct. Uniforms don't improve outcomes or school culture. However, they can save parents money and make it easier for kids to decide what to wear in the morning. My caucasian child went to uniform schools from kindergarten through 5th grade. He had no problem with it and neither did I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think that lower-income families like uniforms and wealthier ones do not? is there evidence for this?

-another white mom who is happy her kid is in a uniform school now (easier and less expensive; uniforms are pretty inexpensive and need fewer outfits for weekends and evenings)

There’s evidence that uniform policies not only do not help disadvantaged students, but harm them when strictly enforced because on-task, but incorrectly dressed students are pulled from instruction to discipline them for being out of code.

[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

The Bullis School's uniform is just that though. Just say it's the skin color in those plain pants plus plain polo shirt that makes a difference.

Bullis school has plaid skirts for girls.

[Anonymous]

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.

It isn’t about outcomes, it is about Discipline. Poor kids need more of it

[Anonymous]

My kids went to Brent and I Loved the uniforms. we moved to a different state and a school with no uniforms and a lazy dress code. I missed the ease of uniforms and the tidy look of the student body.