|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
minnow 
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 19 2003,2:03 pm |
|
   |
A smart and pretty teenage girl could sue the district claiming the rules are sexist...which they really, in truth, are. Are the same rules being applied to the males as well? 
They're rules designed to make teenage girls unattractive to the opposite sex and are far to subjective and arbitrary. Old people trying to dress teens never works, the teen girls themselves should have some input.
The same rules that apply in real life society should also apply to kids in school. No need to control a females dress unless you yourself have a dirty mind. The whole thing is an exercise of putting up with stupid rules. They even tell the kids that they will have to put up with being told how to dress their whole lives so not to complain.
Bull, you grow up and set the rules how your generation sees fit or you live by your own rules like I do.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
just looking
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 20 2003,12:44 am |
|
 |
I agree children should dress appropriately, their parents should be encouraging this. As far as uniforms and the expense, what would 3 pairs of khaki pants and 3 polo shirts cost (you would have to wash once in the middle of the week and once on the weekend) probably far less than I saw people spending just before school started to attire the kids for school. Welfare and poor parents still spend money on clothing and 3 sets of uniforms would probably be far less than they currently spend, and the child raised by a family of less means would not have to beg for name brands to fit in at school because they would all be wearing the same thing. Would this be a good thing, maybe yes, maybe not. But the cost of uniforms should not be the issue - (is the school going to pay for the uniforms, get real - they have to buy clothes for the kids anyway) I am not for or against uniforms - this could be debated all day, just wanted to point out that everyone is already spending money on clothing children, and my opinion is uniforms would be less expensive than the clothes they want to wear.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
Mamma
Group: Members
Posts: 1474
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 20 2003,9:27 pm |
|
|
But then again Minnow...if you played by the rules and followed a little of what society is doing you wouldn't have so much money....but maybe you would be a happier person. You said yourself that the only thing lacking in your life was someone to share it with. Maybe you are doing something wrong.
--------------
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
ALTiger
Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: Sep. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 21 2003,4:40 pm |
|
|
I worked at a clothing department. Most khaki pants are around $40, but can be found sometimes around $30...so I'll use $35 average. A polo shirt runs anywhere from $20-$75. On average, around $30/per (some are less expensive at Wal-Mart and Shopko, but other clothing stores don't really sell for under $30). Using the formula that a student would need 3 shirts and 3 pants, that comes to $198. [$35 * 3 + $30 * 3 = $198] It is possible to spend less than that, but not much less. It is far easier to spend more than that (especially if the child 'needs' a name brand). Unless a specific brand pant and shirt are required, I don't see this detering any of the 'self-esteem' issues that come from having non-name-brand clothes. People with money will still have names on their clothes that people who watch their wallets a little tighter won't have. One problem I see is that it is easy to see the families that shop and spend hundreds of dollars on 'back-to-school' clothes, but the families that use hand-me-downs and second-hand shops will need to find the initial money to equip their children. That is a lot of money (over $200 after shoes are factored in - this does not even count school supplies).
Just some math for everyone to think about.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
just looking
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,1:48 am |
|
|
I should have looked before I posted last but here is what I found after taking a look through my recycling papers, back-to-school sales and it seems that at Shopko/Target/Walmart pants that are khaki in color maybe not official khakis were less than $20.00 and polo or 3 button shirts with a collar were less than $15.00. Leaving a set to less than $35.00 for a total of less than $105.00 for 3 school uniforms. I should get out and shop more but I tend to run out and grab what I need and leave. I would think that $105.00 to dress a child for school would be a fair price and never having to wonder what they were wearing an even better benefit.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,11:28 am |
|
|
Let's see the hitler Youth wore uniforms and schools catering to the the parents, children who have, and reformitory schools. I believe we would only create more rebellion. It would have been nice if they would have issued the dress code at the end of last years school year so the parents would have spent money more wisely.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,12:10 pm |
|
|
Hitler Youth membership was optional, not mandatory. It isn't right to equate wearing uniforms with Nazi's. Catholic schools and military schools have been wearing uniforms for years--and nobody is the worse for it.
Far from rebellion, it might make kids feel like they are a PART of something--something they may not be getting at home. Most people that wear a uniform--whether police, firemen, military (even, it could be argued, gang members)--feel PRIDE in wearing the uniform--it makes them feel like a direct participant. There is still room for personalization--backpacks, jewelry, etc. within the framework of the uniform.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,12:31 pm |
|
|
Anyone advocating a uniform in our public school system better think twice about the consequences of such actions. I would move out of this town before I would ever force either of my daughters to wear a uniform in a public school and I'll bet I'm not the only person that feels that strongly about it.
And Geo. is right to equate wearing uniforms with the Hitler youth. The whole point of the Hitler youth uniforms was to make them feel like they were a PART of something--something they may not have been getting at home...
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,3:03 pm |
|
|
As I said, Catholic schools and military schools have been doing it for a Century or two--doesn't seem to have hurt them!
Gang "colors"--what is that, A UNIFORM!
This is yet one more reason for school vouchers--send your kid to the educational institution that YOU feel is best!
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 22 2003,3:05 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
Joan
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,12:37 pm |
|
|
Bah Humbug:) We're not wealthy, but I'm not wasting money on clothes from Shopko or Wal-Mart. Seams and buttons that need to be resewn colors that run and fade. No thank you, I'd much rather buy once and have things last.
As for the dress code. When I was in HS the styles were similar to those today, not the boxers and thongs but for outer clothing. Rules were implemented at school, we learned to follow them and I really don't think it's had a huge impact on the way I grew up. If anything you learn the difference between appropriate and inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
