Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What schools require lands end ???? Christ. We've had two kids in 4 DC public schools and all have required uniforms, none have been so specific.

Latin. Vendors are Lands End and another uniform store in Georgetown.

A fairly cheap uniform store in Georgetown. Our child went to Latin - we bought 2-3 shirts from the cheap store, cheap khakis from old navy. Done. We also donated outgrown clothes to the many yearly uniform exchanges which appeared to have a massive overflow.

There's nothing cheap in Georgetown. I guess whether something is cheap is relative to One's bank account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friendship charter schools also "require" the logo embroidered shirts, which are $12 each. I put "require" in quotes because while this "requirement" is on the school's literature, other parents told me that a non-embroidered shirt (which Wal Mart sells for less than $5) was ok and since school started, I have noticed many kids (including my own) in plain shirts.

My $.02: the embroidered shirts are an unnecessary expense for families. A simple uniform of commonly available clothes is fine, but the schools need to have a large selection of free uniform compliant clothes for kids in need.

Punishing kids for this is ridiculous.

Ugh - if the school is going to require the embroidered shirt when they know the population they serve is low income they either need to be providing the shirt or providing a very low cost embroider shirt to parents.

It's not that complicated really, don't have embroidered shirts as others have stated or have it be a patch that you sew on. Easier then to use donated shirts. I don't know in many African and Caribbean countries were parents aren't rich many any stretch of the imagination students look smart and presentable every day in clean uniforms. Some of those parents don't even have running water let alone washing machines. Don't let exceptions to the rule change the policy, for most low-income and/or busy parents uniforms are good. Kids can be absolutely brutal to those kids who are not dressed in the latest fashion in clothing or shoes. Students who wear Payless shoes and other non-brand clothing get picked on all the time, uniforms make it a "little" more equal.

9:55 from page 1 here.

I think it is worth pointing out that there are foundations that provide free uniforms to students in developing countries. This foundation, for example: http://tailoredforeducation.org So when you are talking about students in the developing world who "look smart and presentable" despite their families' lack of running water, please keep in mind that the students may be receiving their uniforms from the school and having them cleaned elsewhere.

I posted at 9:55 on page 1 of this thread. This year at our school, we have had 4-5 requests for assistance with uniforms from parents. I think that many of the posters on this thread are severely out of touch with what "low income" means in a lot of cases. In DC, a family of 4 is eligible for food assistance if they make less than $48k a year gross. Our school is ~70% people who are SNAP-eligible. Spending $75/kid on school uniforms is out of reach for most families who are receiving benefits.

My main issue is that these are public schools. Children have a right to receive an education from kindergarten to grade 12, and I feel that schools that require students to come in uniform every day are imposing an undue burden on the neediest students who need the education the most - and even more infuriatingly, they are doing it in the name of reducing stigma and increasing focus on education.

As a culture, we have determined that families at certain income levels are to be granted assistance with things like school lunches, school-provided aftercare, and transportation. We have not made that same determination about uniforms, but schools still continue to require them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friendship charter schools also "require" the logo embroidered shirts, which are $12 each. I put "require" in quotes because while this "requirement" is on the school's literature, other parents told me that a non-embroidered shirt (which Wal Mart sells for less than $5) was ok and since school started, I have noticed many kids (including my own) in plain shirts.

My $.02: the embroidered shirts are an unnecessary expense for families. A simple uniform of commonly available clothes is fine, but the schools need to have a large selection of free uniform compliant clothes for kids in need.

Punishing kids for this is ridiculous.

Ugh - if the school is going to require the embroidered shirt when they know the population they serve is low income they either need to be providing the shirt or providing a very low cost embroider shirt to parents.

It's not that complicated really, don't have embroidered shirts as others have stated or have it be a patch that you sew on. Easier then to use donated shirts. I don't know in many African and Caribbean countries were parents aren't rich many any stretch of the imagination students look smart and presentable every day in clean uniforms. Some of those parents don't even have running water let alone washing machines. Don't let exceptions to the rule change the policy, for most low-income and/or busy parents uniforms are good. Kids can be absolutely brutal to those kids who are not dressed in the latest fashion in clothing or shoes. Students who wear Payless shoes and other non-brand clothing get picked on all the time, uniforms make it a "little" more equal.

Anonymous wrote:I am in the NOVA suburbs but would be willing to help. Is there a way to donate uniform items to schools where there is the most need?

I know Walker Jones needs them. We donated at the beginning of the year, but they need more.

I am in the NOVA suburbs but would be willing to help. Is there a way to donate uniform items to schools where there is the most need?

Anonymous wrote:Friendship charter schools also "require" the logo embroidered shirts, which are $12 each. I put "require" in quotes because while this "requirement" is on the school's literature, other parents told me that a non-embroidered shirt (which Wal Mart sells for less than $5) was ok and since school started, I have noticed many kids (including my own) in plain shirts.

My $.02: the embroidered shirts are an unnecessary expense for families. A simple uniform of commonly available clothes is fine, but the schools need to have a large selection of free uniform compliant clothes for kids in need.

Punishing kids for this is ridiculous.

Ugh - if the school is going to require the embroidered shirt when they know the population they serve is low income they either need to be providing the shirt or providing a very low cost embroider shirt to parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we doing these intimate shelters if you are already saying the workers can't keep up with the residents needs? How about doing one big well managed shelter with one person detailed for uniforms as part of their job details then? Much more efficient.

Because the shelters are temporary 90-day places. There needs to be longer time solutions. Not all homeless families are in a city shelter and many other children in need have challenges with these policies too.

Address it at the school level. Give every kid 3-5 shirts and fleeces or sweaters and let them wear pants and socks of their choice.

Or ditch uniforms all together.

right because this resolvable issue should trump a thoughtful uniform policy? Love DC backseat education drivers. you're all experts--not the adminstrators or teachers.

Anonymous wrote:Why are we doing these intimate shelters if you are already saying the workers can't keep up with the residents needs? How about doing one big well managed shelter with one person detailed for uniforms as part of their job details then? Much more efficient.

Because the shelters are temporary 90-day places. There needs to be longer time solutions. Not all homeless families are in a city shelter and many other children in need have challenges with these policies too.

Address it at the school level. Give every kid 3-5 shirts and fleeces or sweaters and let them wear pants and socks of their choice.

Or ditch uniforms all together.

Why are we doing these intimate shelters if you are already saying the workers can't keep up with the residents needs? How about doing one big well managed shelter with one person detailed for uniforms as part of their job details then? Much more efficient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just think Petula's article could focus more on the law around how to make this a seamless experience for these children, and where that's not happening. The child ending up in the principal's office to get sent home means a lot of stop checks along the way failed. That's what she should be looking at instead of getting all breathless.

I am presuming that once we have these 8 family shelters in DC there will be someone who checks the kids going out the door to see that they are prepared and meet school requirements? I hope that's where some of the massive amount of dollars this initiative will cost will go.

No way will door checks for uniforms by a city worker happen.

My understanding is we are doing these fully staffed intimate settings so that the children thrive. So this should be part of the duties.

The kids have parents and how is a worker supposed to keep up with the uniform policy for the dozens of schools those kids will attend.

The workers should see that kids have clothes and connect those who don't with the school social worker or homeless coordinator or a private group. They should also make sure that there are sufficient working laundry machines for use by residents.

If there are ten kids in the home and five go to uniformed schools, you call the school and ask the policy. Seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The uniforms should be encouraged but optional. Depriving s child of a day at school bc he has the wrong clothes has got to be unconstitutional.

Forget constitutional - it is against their mission of educating all.

Again, by the time it gets to the principal trying to decide how to apply the dress code policy a lot of built in supports for these children have obviously failed. rather than throw it at the school, throw it at the cuty's social servces. Hasn't Muriel Bowser announced that DC is now a right to shelter city year round? There will be lots more families like this, so the city needs to figure this one out. It's lovely that charities are pitching in, but ultimately they need to take LEAD on the systems to support the homeless they are actively courting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just think Petula's article could focus more on the law around how to make this a seamless experience for these children, and where that's not happening. The child ending up in the principal's office to get sent home means a lot of stop checks along the way failed. That's what she should be looking at instead of getting all breathless.

I am presuming that once we have these 8 family shelters in DC there will be someone who checks the kids going out the door to see that they are prepared and meet school requirements? I hope that's where some of the massive amount of dollars this initiative will cost will go.

No way will door checks for uniforms by a city worker happen.

My understanding is we are doing these fully staffed intimate settings so that the children thrive. So this should be part of the duties.

The kids have parents and how is a worker supposed to keep up with the uniform policy for the dozens of schools those kids will attend.

The workers should see that kids have clothes and connect those who don't with the school social worker or homeless coordinator or a private group. They should also make sure that there are sufficient working laundry machines for use by residents.

Anonymous wrote:The uniforms should be encouraged but optional. Depriving s child of a day at school bc he has the wrong clothes has got to be unconstitutional.

Forget constitutional - it is against their mission of educating all.

The uniforms should be encouraged but optional. Depriving s child of a day at school bc he has the wrong clothes has got to be unconstitutional.