Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uniforms can definitely be a hardship for families. Some families will even keep their kids home from school if they don't have clean uniforms. My neighbor was principal at a small SE school, and said that they laundered uniforms there so that kids would have something to wear.

I also think it can discourage families from changing to a more desirable school, if it means they'd have to buy a whole new set of uniforms.

They would have the same issues with non u informs too. Title 1 schools do a donation and swap every year. There are dozens and dozens of free options for anyone. I love uniforms at our title 1. The people opposed are always insecure parents who are worried that other people will think they are poor. Our HH income is 300k and I love my kid in her uniform every day!

Anonymous wrote:We are high income and have kids at a high-performing uniform DCPS school. I love it for so many reasons. It makes getting kids out the door easier. It creates a sense of common experience among the kids. It sends the message that school is for learning, not a fashion show or competition to see who has more branded stuff. Most importantly, it encourages kids to find more meaningful and less superficial ways to express and differentiate themselves.

Uniforms don't have to be expensive: I buy short and long sleeve polos at Target and Children's Place for under $10 each, khakis for under $15, and jumpers on Amazon for about $20. I could not possibly outfit my kids in non-uniform clothes for less than than what I spend on uniforms. I also pick up used things up from the school's swap tables sometimes. There is no stigma to that because a uniform policy reduces clothing to a functional thing, like textbooks to be passed on after use, rather than positioning clothes as a symbol of style and money.

Anonymous wrote:Uniforms can definitely be a hardship for families. Some families will even keep their kids home from school if they don't have clean uniforms. My neighbor was principal at a small SE school, and said that they laundered uniforms there so that kids would have something to wear.

I also think it can discourage families from changing to a more desirable school, if it means they'd have to buy a whole new set of uniforms.

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Hardy parent, uniforms are a definite turn off. Why would Hardy want to suggest that it is a tough urban school that needs uniforms to instill discipline?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found uniforms to be more expensive. I’m not in the position to take free clothes from the school social worker when there are other families who need them more.

But now at a non-uniform school I can get hand me downs from anyone and thrift for way less money than buying new from target etc even with the sales.

you’re in the minority. the fact is, textiles are cheap, and most people just buy new for their kids, including uniforms. and for that matter, it’s irritating but typical that DCUM sees all DC black kids as desperately poor, not even $14 for a new uniform. Plenty of working families here who can afford uniforms and chose schools that have uniforms like KIPP. Not all black kids in DC are homeless, get it? This whole kerfuffle about uniforms is an object lesson in performative wokeness. if you actually polled families at schools with uniforms, my guess is a majority (even the “poors”) would want to keep them, particularly at places like KIPP where they are part of the identity.

This is the obvious solution. Lots more meaningful than mostly UMC DCUM posters arguing back and forth about what's best for people that most of us don't know who live in circumstances that we're not familiar with.

Also -- lots of things can be true. Some homeless families might be in favor. Some working class families who rely on hand me downs might prefer not to have them. People whose kids don't go to those schools arguing about what's best is just silly.

FWIW, not everyone on DCUM fits your stereotype. I’m a social worker who works primarily with families in Ward 8. I live in Ward 1 and my kids go to a uniform school. It definitely has pros and cons, but I think DCPS should subsidize the uniforms where they are required and/or figure out a way that kids’ uniforms could get washed at school. Our school actually has a washing machine and dryer and I’ve personally washed donated uniforms in the washer.

Oh please. DCPS should mandate uniforms, buy them for certain students and then wash their uniforms for them at school?’ Your ideas make Bernie seem like Milton Friedman!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found uniforms to be more expensive. I’m not in the position to take free clothes from the school social worker when there are other families who need them more.

But now at a non-uniform school I can get hand me downs from anyone and thrift for way less money than buying new from target etc even with the sales.

you’re in the minority. the fact is, textiles are cheap, and most people just buy new for their kids, including uniforms. and for that matter, it’s irritating but typical that DCUM sees all DC black kids as desperately poor, not even $14 for a new uniform. Plenty of working families here who can afford uniforms and chose schools that have uniforms like KIPP. Not all black kids in DC are homeless, get it? This whole kerfuffle about uniforms is an object lesson in performative wokeness. if you actually polled families at schools with uniforms, my guess is a majority (even the “poors”) would want to keep them, particularly at places like KIPP where they are part of the identity.

This is the obvious solution. Lots more meaningful than mostly UMC DCUM posters arguing back and forth about what's best for people that most of us don't know who live in circumstances that we're not familiar with.

Also -- lots of things can be true. Some homeless families might be in favor. Some working class families who rely on hand me downs might prefer not to have them. People whose kids don't go to those schools arguing about what's best is just silly.

FWIW, not everyone on DCUM fits your stereotype. I’m a social worker who works primarily with families in Ward 8. I live in Ward 1 and my kids go to a uniform school. It definitely has pros and cons, but I think DCPS should subsidize the uniforms where they are required and/or figure out a way that kids’ uniforms could get washed at school. Our school actually has a washing machine and dryer and I’ve personally washed donated uniforms in the washer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found uniforms to be more expensive. I’m not in the position to take free clothes from the school social worker when there are other families who need them more.

But now at a non-uniform school I can get hand me downs from anyone and thrift for way less money than buying new from target etc even with the sales.

you’re in the minority. the fact is, textiles are cheap, and most people just buy new for their kids, including uniforms. and for that matter, it’s irritating but typical that DCUM sees all DC black kids as desperately poor, not even $14 for a new uniform. Plenty of working families here who can afford uniforms and chose schools that have uniforms like KIPP. Not all black kids in DC are homeless, get it? This whole kerfuffle about uniforms is an object lesson in performative wokeness. if you actually polled families at schools with uniforms, my guess is a majority (even the “poors”) would want to keep them, particularly at places like KIPP where they are part of the identity.

This is the obvious solution. Lots more meaningful than mostly UMC DCUM posters arguing back and forth about what's best for people that most of us don't know who live in circumstances that we're not familiar with.

Also -- lots of things can be true. Some homeless families might be in favor. Some working class families who rely on hand me downs might prefer not to have them. People whose kids don't go to those schools arguing about what's best is just silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found uniforms to be more expensive. I’m not in the position to take free clothes from the school social worker when there are other families who need them more.

But now at a non-uniform school I can get hand me downs from anyone and thrift for way less money than buying new from target etc even with the sales.

you’re in the minority. the fact is, textiles are cheap, and most people just buy new for their kids, including uniforms. and for that matter, it’s irritating but typical that DCUM sees all DC black kids as desperately poor, not even $14 for a new uniform. Plenty of working families here who can afford uniforms and chose schools that have uniforms like KIPP. Not all black kids in DC are homeless, get it? This whole kerfuffle about uniforms is an object lesson in performative wokeness. if you actually polled families at schools with uniforms, my guess is a majority (even the “poors”) would want to keep them, particularly at places like KIPP where they are part of the identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this talk about poor kids accepting hand-me-downs is making me feel some kind of way. I can't quite articulate why, but it's rubbing me the wrong way.

It's rubbing you the wrong way because it's another way of making poor people feel ashamed for wanting the same stuff that less poor people are allowed to want. There is a meaningful difference between saying, "I make a lot of money and my kids' uniforms are mostly second hand because that's not a priority to me" and saying that poor people shouldn't care about choosing clothing and should essentially be grateful that people are giving them anything at all.

Personally, I feel that if DCPS is requiring uniforms, which technically they are as there are policies for penalizing students without uniforms, DCPS should be funding the uniforms for all families. I also feel that way about school supplies, FWIW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good info here on the history of school uniforms, why they started being implemented in the US in the 90s, and a list of pros and cons. I'm pretty much in the cons category, particularly for reasons 4, 5, 6, and 12, which have also been discussed here.

https://school-uniforms.procon.org/

Thanks for sharing, lots of food for thought. I found myself very much into the pros category, but then I went to a local school in the UK for several years as a kid, and liked wearing a strict-as-Harry-Potter uniform there.

Anonymous wrote:Just curious how everyone (both those for and against uniforms) think uniform policies should be enforced. Honest question because I teach in an elementary school where only half the kids wear uniforms because we don’t make them and their parents don’t make them. They all HAVE them, but just don’t care about it because admin doesn’t. I personally don’t care either way about uniforms, but do think it has to be one way or another. So whether you are for or against uniforms, if a school has a uniform policy and a kid comes out of uniform, what do you think the school should do?