Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you! One or more PPs keeps forcefully arguing that uniforms are not a hardship, when several of us have provided evidence that it can be.

Also, yes, it irks me that kids WOTP are allowed individuality and can wear that Spider-man t-shirt or whatever according to their whim, but that my brown EOTP kid is not allowed to. It's part of a larger pattern of harsh, punitive rules regulating children's clothing/hair at majority black/brown schools across the country.

I pretty much agree with this. The thing that irks me is the difference, the visual cue of "otherness" from the environment at the WOTP schools. To me, there's also the whiff of the tendency to focus more on discipline vs social-emotional skills. Again, the difference in expectations for the lower classes vs. the wealthier.

That said, if uniforms are here to stay for some DCPS then at least do a DCPS-wide consistent uniform. That would help with uniform banks and also not be a barrier to transferring schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach at a Title I school and every year the kids make fun of my “old” iPhone while wearing their Jordans, Helly Hansen jackets and Beats headphones. Money to buy uniforms doesn’t seem to be an issue for most of my kids. Willingness to actually wear them is the issue.

I hope you don’t teach at our DC’s Title 1 school, because this is some racist, welfare queen bullsh*t that I would not expect to come from an educator.

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

Anonymous wrote:I teach at a Title I school and every year the kids make fun of my “old” iPhone while wearing their Jordans, Helly Hansen jackets and Beats headphones. Money to buy uniforms doesn’t seem to be an issue for most of my kids. Willingness to actually wear them is the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you! One or more PPs keeps forcefully arguing that uniforms are not a hardship, when several of us have provided evidence that it can be.

Also, yes, it irks me that kids WOTP are allowed individuality and can wear that Spider-man t-shirt or whatever according to their whim, but that my brown EOTP kid is not allowed to. It's part of a larger pattern of harsh, punitive rules regulating children's clothing/hair at majority black/brown schools across the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you! One or more PPs keeps forcefully arguing that uniforms are not a hardship, when several of us have provided evidence that it can be.

Also, yes, it irks me that kids WOTP are allowed individuality and can wear that Spider-man t-shirt or whatever according to their whim, but that my brown EOTP kid is not allowed to. It's part of a larger pattern of harsh, punitive rules regulating children's clothing/hair at majority black/brown schools across the country.

Anonymous wrote: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 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.

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.

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.

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