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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.