Uniform uprising lands 1,500 Clayton teens in hot water
This is why I don’t like uniforms, especially for high school students.
Uniforms are more trouble than they’re worth in light of the research showing no impact on academic performance. It seems to me that uniforms create a policing nightmare for schools with little to no payoff.
As the AJC reported Tuesday:
Tired of school uniforms, more than 1,500 Clayton County high school students came to school on Friday in what school officials called “non-appropriate dress.”
Now the students are facing suspensions, detentions and other punishments.
After questions from the AJC, school officials confirmed on Tuesday that the district was the “target” of an organized protest.
“Based on an incomplete survey of schools, the district has determined that more than 1,500 students arrived at school on Friday in non-appropriate dress,” district spokesman Charles White said in a statement.
White declined to say how many students were suspended, but said they were all disciplined. White said that discipline varied from school to school. He said he could not comment on specifics because schools are closed all week for Thanksgiving
“In several cases, this was in direct defiance of school-level administrative instructions to students advising them to be in uniform dress or face consequence for their actions,” he said in a statement.
The students at the county’s nine high schools organized online by sending messages urging their friends to “buck the system,” White said.
The uniform boycott, called “Protest As One,” was also discussed among 782 members of a public Facebook group called “Clayton County high school students against required uniforms.”
One student organizer wrote, “they can’t suspend you all and you will be making a stand for yourself.”
But the students learned otherwise.
“Students who participated in this deliberate attempt to interrupt the school routine made a bad choice on Friday and need to be held responsible for that decision,” Superintendent Edmond Heatley said in a statement. “It should be noted that disciplinary actions were based on students’ failure to follow instructions and disrupting the school and not on being out of uniform dress.”
Most school districts that institute uniforms exempt high schools as it’s very hard to tell 18-year-olds how to dress.
Clayton ordered all elementary and middle school students last year to wear uniform dress, including khaki pants, skirts, polo shirts and sweaters of the same color. This year, the policy was expanded to high schools.
I think it was a mistake and creates needless controversy and ill will among both parents and students.
Anyone disagree?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
96 comments Add your comment
Educator
November 26th, 2009
9:49 am
“It’s a board-mandated policy,” she said Tuesday night. “It’s about student achievement and not what you wear.”
“I think it helps them to focus much better,” said Yolanda Williams, who has a student at Drew and another at a Clayton elementary school. “You have a lot of kids who are geared toward fashion as opposed to learning. That [uniforms] helps a whole lot, but only if we can get all the parents to participate. Some parents don’t want their kids to participate.”
It looks to me as though they failed in their purpose. The uniform requirement has distracted from student achievement since the focus has become the uniform issue and nothing else.
Just a Thought
November 26th, 2009
1:34 pm
Uniform dress is one focus but I assure you not the only one. In schools you primarily have two concerns: 1) academics and 2) discipline/behavior. Uniform dress falls under number two. It is only being made a big issue in the media. As another Clayton teacher stated, we were not even aware of a “protest” until the article appeared in the AJC. While I think the issue is a good topic for discussion, the impact of the actual “protest” is being made to be much more than it really is. If you combine all the thousands of students in Clayton high schools, 1500 is not a large number. That means the majority of the students were in uniform dress. I frequent the AJC because I like to get an idea of what’s going on. However, I am careful to remember that newspapers only cover a story…they can rarely grasp the complexity or depth of what is really going on. Hence taking an “angle” of a story. Don’t get wrapped up in the hype.
Christina
November 26th, 2009
4:39 pm
Its amazing parents that we can fo;;ow rules at our jobs to wear uniforms when required, but we cant make our kids wear uniforms. Thats why so many of our young teens are in jail now because they cant follow simple rules and the parents is too afraid to make them . Well there is still jails being built so keep letting your kids do what they want, the state will own them one day and its no body fault but the PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sarge
November 26th, 2009
6:45 pm
Educator, what did you write…”Some parents don’t want their kids to participate” (in the uniform issue)? I’ll bet far more than a few parents do not wish to pay taxes, drive the speed limit or clean the gutters at least once a year, HOWEVER…either they should, or they MUST. If the parent were to employ a doctor, lawyer, or other professional on behalf of the kid, I would suspect the professional has the first, middle and last word as to the conduct of the professional service provided. If parents are to become involved, to such an extent, in school policy, than what’s the point in even hiring ed professionals? Let the kids and the parents run the show, and everyone, in theory, will be happy for ever after. When are these “educators” going to develop the “professional spheroids” to say, both to parents and students, “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS AND THIS IS THE WAY IT IS…PERIOD!
Philosopher
November 26th, 2009
10:28 pm
You are quite welcome to produce little yes-people if you like. I never said anything about teaching kids to break rules. What I said was, they need to question within a reasonable framework, learn from their mistakes and learn to think for themselves. It is such a bogus assumption that if kids think for themselves, the parents MUST have been permissive and the kids worthless. Hogwash! If done right, what you get are mature, productive, thoughtful adults. My kids are neither rude nor disrespectful and although they didn’t wear uniforms, one is about to finish college and one grad school… they both have excellent jobs, too…fancy that!
Terrry
November 27th, 2009
12:23 am
Uniforms do not make a difference whatsoever except to assist in creating sheeple.
Gary Klahr
November 27th, 2009
3:28 am
Enter your comments here — Philosopher is CORRECT; uniforms are CLEARLY UNNCESSARY and unduly-oppressive rules. Just ENFORCING REGULAR DRESS CODES permitting diverse clothes like tee shirts and well-fitted jeans solves the problems raised by the other posters here. It is ABSURD to claim that a dress code can’t be enforced—but a STRICTER uni can be!!! Khaki uni pants can be worn JUST AS OVERSIZED and baggy/saggy as jeans; further the 3 buttons on polos allow MORE skin to be shown than kids wearing the now-banned neckbanded tee shirts. Kids in the South & West have worn tees & jeans to school for over 100 years; WE are the conservatives; you pro-uniformers are the RADICALS!!
I have NO objection to expelling repeat dress-code violators—but GOOD kids wearing APPROPRIATE non-uniform street clothes should be allowed to do so; We do NOT believe in GROUP-PUNISHMENT in this country. If some of you are so fond of uniformity, PLEASE emigrate to CUBA, NORTH KOREA or CHINA—you will see all the kids “neatly-dressed in uniforms” THERE!!! I serbbved 8 yeasrs on a HS Governing Bd and we were WELL-able to enforce proper dress w/o uniforms. I hope the kids in Clayton just flat-refuse to wear unis; are the authorities going to SHOOT them like at Kent State in 1970? As pointed out, DeKalb tried unis and finally ousted the Sup’t who brought them in. I will help any kids wanting to fight unis and their PARENTS; student clothing should be a PARENT decision—not a GOVERNMENT one. I can be reached at GarryK57647@aol.com or (602) 265-3150./s/ GARY PETER KLAHR, J.D., Phoenix
Gary Klahr
November 27th, 2009
3:30 am
Enter your comments here That e-mail is incorrect as printed–it is GaryK57647@aol.com (one “r”)
ScienceTeacher671
November 27th, 2009
9:10 am
Gary Klahr, it seems to me that two of your points – the one about enforcing dress codes with “APPROPRIATE” street clothing being okay, and the idea that student clothing should be a parent decision rather than a “GOVERNMENT” one – are in contradiction to each other.
Whether uniforms are required or “appropriate” street clothing is allowed, an entity (in this case the school) is imposing its idea of what is and is not appropriate on others.
Ole Guy
November 27th, 2009
10:31 am
Gary, if you truly feel that a uniform standard would be unduly oppressive, than, come Monday when you report to “the man”, you might demonstrate your fervor by doning your ball cap, jeans and sweats. After all, you’ll just be expressing your individuality, just as you probably learned it in your basic education years.
Philosopher
November 27th, 2009
5:30 pm
Ole Guy: “if you truly feel that a uniform standard would be unduly oppressive, than, come Monday when you report to “the man”, you might demonstrate your fervor by doning your ball cap, jeans and sweats. After all, you’ll just be expressing your individuality, just as you probably learned it in your basic education years.”
That is such a fallacious argument! These are kids…not employees. If you teach them to use critical thinking skills as kids, when they get to be adults or have a job that requires a uniform dress codes, they will be smart enough and mature enough to dress appropriately. We are not talking about dogs that need to be trained…we are supposed to be raising, thinking, problem-solving humans.
Gary Klahr
November 27th, 2009
7:13 pm
Answering my opponents—-To “notaracist”—I AGREE that school is NOT a fashion show—and I INSIST—based on TEN years of fighting uniforms in 30+ states—that NONE of the protesters want such. My clients do NOT spend big bucks on designer jeans and hoodies; they do NOT want to express some kind of “freak individuality” as you imply; they JUST want to send their kids in ORDINARY kid street clothes worn since K. WHY do TEE SHIRTS and PROPERLy-fitted jeans OFFEND you so much?????
TO Just a Thought.”—Contra to the FALSE IMAGE of rebellious kids & irresponsible parents, the VAST MAJORITY obey even STUPID, unconstitutional rules; that does NOT mean the “rule” is fair, ncessary or right. In America—the “default” rule is FREDOM—not restrictions; they are imposed only when necessary. That is why I DO favor REGULAR DRESS CODES like 90+ pct of U.S. schools.
To CHRISTNA—You will be shocked to learn that surveys show that almost ALL uni protesters are the BEST & THE BRIGHTEST; gang members & criminals NEVER protest unis; indeed in Phoenix, two uniformed girls torched their classroom and one boy stole a car after school while STILL in his uniform. Very few jobs require unis—just dress codes; indeed it is fast food that requires adults to wear unis; at INTEL & APPLE, engineers CAN work in tee shirts if they want (most don’t). A survey in Sacramento among middle-schoolers showed that the average GPA of kids who were OPTED-out of unis there—as permitted by Calif. law—was ONE WHOLE GRADE HIGHER than the conformists who WORE the uniforms. SURPRISED?? And I do NOT support irresponsible parents; if parents let their kids violate the REGULAR dress code, they should LOSE their opt-out and be REQUIRED to wear unis!!! But why do you want to PUNISH THE GOOD KIDS– who ALREADY wear appropriate clothes –with unis, mam????????
TO SARGE—In America (except in the military), CITIZENS make the decisions for themselves—not experts. Choosing school clothes is a FAMILY decision—not a communal one to be made for everyone by the Government;–school bds are NOT fashion mavens.
To scienceTeacher671—My position is NOT inconsistent. I am a MODERATE—not an extremist on this issue; the radicals are the pro-uniformers. Schools have ALWAYS had rules barring indecent or disruptive clortthing; such is legal and should be ENFORCED. What is NOT proper are “dress codes/uniform” rules than ban CLEARLY-appropriate TRADITIONAL clothing worn by kids in Atlanta since K—and by kids in the South & West for 100 years+—such as PROPERLY-fitted tee shirts & jeans.
And to Ole Guy–Your sarcasm is inappropriate; as stated, I am NOT an Extremist on this issue; I am the moderate on school dress, having been part of the “Man” most of my life (I was an Employer, City Councilman and School Bd member as well as a JP Pro-Tem.) I personally am one of the FEW males in this country that doesn’t even OWN a pair of jeans OR a tee-shirt; I have PERSONALLY worn only oxford shirts since 7th grade and slacks since college—but i do NOT think it is the GOVERNMENT’s job to tell me that I couldn’t wear tees & jeans if I chose to. COMPRENDE????
Sarah
November 28th, 2009
9:22 am
We even have rules on belts, shoes, hair accessories, jewelry and just about anything. Our uniform dress code has been in place for over 10 years and I personally think it has helped with discipline.
Marie
November 28th, 2009
9:54 am
Another case of defiance by students who should be interested in education rather than how they look! Colleges won’t be interested in what you look like, but, what your overall grades were, course work and giving back to the community you live in! I and other college educated individuals don’t want to take care of you when you can’t get a job in the future because you lack a proper education to compete in our society!
Ole Guy
November 28th, 2009
12:50 pm
Philo, I can only paraphrase Ronnie, the actor-turned-prez: “There you go again”!
I couldn’t agree more with you in that, when the time comes, kids-turned-adults will be smart enough and mature enough to adapt to the dictates of the real world. The big question remains…exactly how will this transformation take place, exactly how will they achieve the intelect necessary to capture these smarts and levels of maturity? I honestly don’t think it will somehow decend upon their beings simply because, in their “yout”, they were permitted to freely express themselves in the absense of adult guidance. Now in what shape should that adult guidance take place…you say, in effect, “let um (the kids) decide, I say “provide that standard of dress now”. I can’t understand how this would, as you alluded, make them “yes-men/women”, and I certainly do not understand how this would inhibit their thinking and problem-solving skills. If anything, I believe their entire academic experiences would be greatly enhanced.
Gary Klahr
November 28th, 2009
2:02 pm
Ole Guy doesn’t understand this issue AT ALL. NO ONE —repeat NO ONE—is asking for “free dress” or “dress as you like.” We are asking for STANDARD, regular DRESS CODES like 90+ pct of U.S. schools use. Such codes—unlike unis—permit APPROPRIATE diverse styles & colors. WHY should kids be punished for wearing traditiional kid street clothes worn for 100 years like neckbanded tees (instead of collared polos) or well-fitted jeans (instead of uniform khakis). THAT is what this is aLL about—and that is ONLY what it is about. Kids need to be trained to make proper clorthing CHOICES as they will as adults. Very few adults wiill have no clothing choices. Kids forced to wear identical clothes 180 days a year don’t learn how to make the APPROPRIATE choices required of CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY. As for “adult guidance,” that comes from PARENTS—-NOT the Government!!!! There IS a required “standard” for school dress—that provided in dress codes barring indecent or disruptive clothes, or those showing skin or body parts that may be inappropriate. THAT is ALL the guidance kids & parents need—they don’t need the pro-uni posters here telling them how tto dress under penalty of expulsion from a PUBLIC school. COMPRENDE, ANYONE????????????
Hall Monitor
November 28th, 2009
6:28 pm
This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.
ScienceTeacher671
November 28th, 2009
9:11 pm
Gary Klahr, 100 years??? I was in high school much less than 100 years ago – MUCH LESS! – but in my public high school we were not allowed to wear t-shirts or jeans. In fact, we girls were not allowed to wear pants at all!
After we graduated, girls were allowed to wear PANTSUITS and at some point they finally allowed jeans….
Gary Klahr
November 29th, 2009
12:10 am
To Science Teacher 671—I may be off by a FEW years—but you FAIL to answer my POINT on that or ANY of my OTHER points. The POINT is that the kind of clothes I would permit are STANDARD kid-wear in this country for MANY years; we are NOT talking Britney semi-nudity or the alleged “right” of hip-hop kids to show their underwear. Do you understand my position or NOT? I find in these arguments, when I score a big point, my opponents just try to nitpick (as you did) or change the subject. Again –I CHALLENGE YOU—please tell me the supposed “horrible effects” on school discipline etc of allowing kids to wear the clothes even YOU admit were finally allowed in YOUR school—properly-fitted jeans and collar-less tops (usually called T-shirts). Again, almost ALL the points raised by YOUR side in this blog are irrelevant to my MODERATE and MAINSTREAM position on this issie./gpk
neonsonicboy
November 29th, 2009
8:03 am
I live in the UK so don’t really know much about this, but I do think that I would do the same as these people did. Here, it is the decision of the school, and almost all schools have uniform, but I would hate it if I were forced to this level.
Adam Tryon
November 29th, 2009
2:06 pm
When I went to high school back in 1981, it was okay to wear just about anything. The various clicks would dress in their signature styles. I soon adopted the jeans and t-shirt look, the shirt usually depicting a favorite brand or character. I didn’t have the one of Mickey Mouse giving Iran the bird. I usually wore something nerdy, like a picture of a sun and a moon giving each other faces, or the logo of my favorite team or for a city that I had visited.
Anyway, it seems to me that what is and what is not inappropriate today is about the same as it was back then. Trends change of course, but what we find basically offensive changes very little from one generation to the next.
Of course because do we grow more complex as a society – especially among the younger generation – it does take more work these days to determine what is provocative flashing and what is appropriate expression. But the fundamental right – and even emotional need – to express ourselves to our peers – as most of us do mainly with clothing (and jewelry) – should not be denied just so parents and teachers may avoid that small extra effort it takes to give kids their freedom and still maintain order.
Philosopher
November 29th, 2009
2:39 pm
@Adam Tryon: AMEN! My only objection, as an experienced parent is that it is not a small effort at al…but it is still my responsibility.
Ole Guy
November 29th, 2009
4:38 pm
Gary, I’m sure, as a reasonable person, you’ve often wondered why, when turning right at an intersection, if the traffic light is red you must, BY LEGAL DECREE, first come to a complete stop and ensure there is no on-coming traffic in the lane in which you are about to enter. “It is just as well”, one would reasonably presume, “that I check for on-coming traffic while my vehicle is rolling, thus treating the red traffic light as a yield sign”.
Counselor, the Ole Guy understands the issue all too well. For the very same reason we are obliged to remain at that very same traffic light, for what may seem like an inordinate amount of time, before turning green and we proceed straight ahead. Even at the wee hours, when the entire world is tucked away, we must, by law, sit at the red, wasting both time and fuel, not to mention the safety ramifications which lurk into the night.
Unfortunately, there are, for lack of a more gentile description, boneheads and morons who go through life with absolutely no sense of “situational awareness”, of the advisability of “prudent caution”. It is because of these (one would hope) relatively few that the aformentioned laws exist, without which cars would probably go crashing into the other like circus bumper cars.
Rhetorically speaking, when we operate a motor vehicle, we must all be “punished”, if you will, for the indiscretions of a few. By the same token, the school board, right or wrong, and in reaction to observing a relatively few kids who could not/would not make appropriate choices, had to mandate this dress code.
As reasonable adults, we may not always follow the prescribed driving regs; we might exceed, by a few MPH, the posted limit; we might roll by that red light, checking, on the left, for on-coming traffic, as we execute that right turn. We probably do these things daily and not even think about the fact that we could be “punished” for such transgressions.
WHAT BETTER TIME TO TEACH THESE KIDS THAT, UNTIL THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED SOUND DECISION-MAKING SKILLS, THEY GOTTA FOLLOW THE RULES!
ScienceTeacher671
November 29th, 2009
6:39 pm
Gary Klahr, neither have you answered my question. Whenever there is a dress code, isn’t someone imposing their standards of what is appropriate on everyone else?
Gary Klahr
November 29th, 2009
7:23 pm
To ScienceTeacher 671–Of course even a DRESS CODE is gov’t imposed regulation; as I have said THREE TIMES now, I am a moderate on this issue. But there is a THICK, BRIGHT LINE—not a thin wispy one—between a STANDARD dress code used in 90 pct of U.S. schools and this uniform or Standard School Attire (SSA) nonsense that is spreading faster than the swine flu.
There IS INDEED fairltyy widespread agreement on WHAT is APPROPRIATE attitre for public schools; at the MARGIn, there may be disagreement, but it is submitted that at LEAST 75 pct of vthe public agrees that PROPERRLY-FITTED and CLEAN , untorn tee shirts annd denim jeans ARE aopppropriate for school; yet almost ALL unis ban THOSE items in favor of more formal polos & khakis or slacks.
To OLE GIU—You are WTONG on TWO levels. In the first place, Americans have AQLWAYS rebelled ahainstt UNREASONABLE rules; have you forgotten Jefferson’s Declartation of Indepeendence and DSr,. king”s Civil diosobedience of Georgia’s outrageous Jim Crow laws? Or were YOU on the side of the KKK in “Mississippi Burning.”?? Secondly, although I AM advocating C/D here, my MAIN call is for the “Man” as you put it—your STUPID. foolish school board—to follow DeKallb County next door and repeal mand unis or at least allow parent opt-out as in Miami-Dade County, Florida, a comparable Southern urban area. Instead of telling us that RULES ARE RULES, why don’t you take up my CHALLENGE on this blog and EXPLAIN TO us exactly what HORRORS in school are created by kids wearting tee shirts & jeans as they have in Ga, for decades and in your district since K until recently. HUH????? And you are DEAD WRIONG that unids are required “because a few kids refused to make appropriate choices” in clothes. I havec stated FIVE times now that dress code violators CAN & SHOULD be expelled or otherwise severely punished—but this should NOT apply to the MAJORITY who DO wear appropriate—if diverse— street clothes. The solution to non-enforcement of laws is MORE ENFORCEMENT—NOT MORE LAWS!!!!
ScienceTeacher671
November 29th, 2009
8:40 pm
Unless we really are trying to raise our children to be factory workers, I think high school students should wear attire a bit nicer than simply a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, no matter how “well-fitted”. What’s wrong with khakis and a polo shirt? It’s certainly less formal than much business attire.
Gary Klahr
November 30th, 2009
12:57 am
To Science teacher 671—The key is FORCED uniformity and LACK OF LEGIT DIVERSITY!!! There is NOTHING WRONG witith khakis and polos and most HS kids I know have BOTH in their WARDROBE. But NONE I know want to be FORCED to wear them to school EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. Kids do NOT need to be forced to dress up in school in order to learn how to dress up later. EVERYTHING depends on the occasion; as a kid, I was “forced” by my parents to wear button-up shirts and slacks to Sunday School—but NO ONE thought such should be required for daily public school—NO ONE!!! My experience is that as a kid gets older, his choice of clothes DOES usually get more diverse and more formal NATURALLY; but there is NO BASIS for PUNISHING a a well-behaved kid MERELY because he wears a non-collared shirt or a pair of jeans to public school. Do you FINALLY get my point or NOT????
Ed Johnson
November 30th, 2009
1:12 pm
Obviously, adults in public schools who would impose a standard uniform dress upon kids prefer teaching the kids to be complicit in, and non-disruptive of, the adults’ lazy autocractic behavior rather than teaching the kids to become cooperative and active participants in our democracy for the benefit of the common good. And where adults impose standard uniform dress in the belief standard uniform dress solves student discipline problems, the standard uniform dress accomplishes nothing but to dress up the student discipline problems. But, of course, the student discipline problems will resurface more virally and viciously than ever. And then the adults will set up the next lazy autocractic solution. And each vicious cycle of lazy autocractic solution will spiral even more deeper, becoming more and more dominate over democratic behavior with each generation of kids having grown into adulthood. From one generation to the next, survival will depend more on competition rather than on cooperation.
Let us be thankful for the some 1,500 teens in Clayton County, for they hold the promise of transforming vicious cycle of autocratic laziness into virtuous cycles of democratic sustainability.
Student of CCPS
December 1st, 2009
11:23 am
I am one of the students that did not wear their uniforms on Friday. I go to open campus and i was punished after my home school told me I didn’t have to wear my uniform. I totally disagree on the uniforms and believe that it should’ve only been set of middle and elementary schools. I am glad that there were so many people that chose to be different and make a statement. We were promised, at the meeting during the summer, that after 6 weeks we would get a free friday and till this day nothing has changed. I believe the school board should keep their word and give us atleast free friday since we don’t even have homecoming week to celebrate.
jim d
December 1st, 2009
12:01 pm
these 1500 demonstarte there is yet hope for this country.
Gary Klahr
December 1st, 2009
4:13 pm
TO THE STUDENT AT CCPS—You need to put your BODY where your mouth is. They CANNOT suspend 1500 students if they REFUSE to be suspended; they would have to MASSACRE them, like at Kent State & Jackson State in 1970—and the “Man” will NOT do that over tee shirts & jeans. MARK my word. You guys are TOTAL WIMPS for accepting suspensions. You MUST just sit in your seats and refuse to go to the office to be suspended; if the cops drag you out by the hair, have it transmitted to the outside world by camera phone. In 1963, Dr. King got NOWHERE in Birrmingham on Civil Rights until the police used dogs & fire hoses on the black kids and CBS News & the NY TIMES printed the pictures. And to get public sympathy, you guys MUST dress APPROPRIATELY in non-uniform pro-social logo tees and PROPERLY-fitted jeans. The shirt logos should either be Georgia State shirts or Support Our Troops or Pro-Life or some other conservative slogan POPULAR in Georgia. Most pro-uni people have NO IDEA that unis bar even their favorite logo shirts. For example, in the NEWSOM case in Va., a kid wore an NRA tee in violation of a school rule against shirts depicting “violence” in any way. The Va Atty-General REFUSED to defend the school, and the conservative 4th Cir.. Ct of Appeals in Richmond held IN FAVOR OF THE KID—ppinting out that the NRA shiirt was similar to the arms shown on the Va. STATE SEAL. COMPRENDE ANYONE????????????????????
ScienceTeacher671
December 1st, 2009
7:00 pm
Gary Klahr, regardless of your shouting, I think your approach and the uniform approach are just a matter of degrees.
Educator
December 1st, 2009
7:29 pm
At Forest Park they tried reverse psychology…that morning they told the students they were being rewarded, and they could dress down that day..Ha no one wanted to deal with suspending everyone.
Ole Guy
December 1st, 2009
9:17 pm
Absolutely, Teach 71. The counselor, through his writings, seems to become somewhat excitable when, in reality, we all seem to have common agreement from different situational angles. I just figured the Arizona desert was making him irritable!
Gary Klahr
December 2nd, 2009
3:14 am
I am passionate—but very moderate in my OPINIONS. why does NO ONE want to comment on the MAIN issue here—why should good kids be punished for wearing totally-appropriate clothes they have worn since K—especially properly-fitted, clean tee shirts and denim jeans. Although that is the MAIN complaint I have about this code—everybody discusses EVERYTHING BUT THAT. WHY?????????????????????????????????
Gary Klahr
December 2nd, 2009
3:17 am
To Science Teacher 671—WRONG; there is a BRIGHT THICK line between a normal dress code which gives kids 1000 combo options and THIS uni code nonsense which gives only a few, if any, clothing options. WHY can’t you understand THAT???????????????????????????????????
jim d
December 2nd, 2009
1:16 pm
Schools of CHOICE–some with uniforms some without—PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
Ole Guy
December 2nd, 2009
2:36 pm
Gary, like the head guy said in the movie, Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate”…that BRIGHT THICK line, like many issues in life, is a matter of situational interpretation. A dress code of “DRESS WARMLY” would have two entirely separate and distinct meanings in, say, Michigan, and in your home environs (I know, it gets cold in the desert…please just stay with me on this one).
Now please understand, I have no love affair with the school board in question. Over the years, they have not, in my opinion, demonstrated the qualities expected of an educational system charged with preparing kids for the mean ole world…HOWEVER, your issue of choice of dress is, like your BRIGHT THICK line, a matter of situational interpretation. Where a student body (or, for that matter, any assembledge which, by their very presence, represents something bigger than they) presents themselves in a manner coducive to the purpose for which they assemble in the first place, all is well and good (please note that, up to this point, prescibed uniforms have not been introduced). However, when large numbers of the assemblege, perhaps not all, but, lets say, more than 51%, present themselves in completely inappropriate dress which, by reasonable standards, is not at all conducive to the purpose for which they assemble, than that BRIGHT THICK line has not only been crossed, but left far behind. This is when the dress standards have transitioned from the normal dress code, with a 1000 combo options, to the more-rigid uni code. While this may appear somewhat draconian, there exists institutions of learning which simply ascribe to the uniformity of dress as being of maximum value in fostering the purpose for which all have assembled. As Jimmy D has pointed, SCHOOLS OF CHOICE! AMEN!!
ScienceTeacher671
December 3rd, 2009
7:33 pm
“Properly fitted jeans” appears to mean overly-large and sagging for some of our children, overly tight to others…and then there are the “hip huggers” worn by the girls which barely cover the pubic hairs and sometimes leave large rolls of abdominal flesh protruding over them.
Tshirts seem to have similar degrees of interpretation. Some of our students think these shirts should be large and quite long; others think they should be shorter and quite tight. Necklines may also vary.
Hopefully, you get the point?
Ole Guy
December 11th, 2009
12:25 pm
What this means, Sci Teach, is that, unfortunately, kids aren’t being taught to make appropriate decisions, so we, the so-called “establishment”, are obliged to make those decisions for them.
When I was a kid, my Mom allowed me, basically, two wardrobes: the stuff I could wear in “human company”…church, school, etc…and the “weird stuff”, clothing considered cool, by contemporary teenage standards. The proviso on wear of the “cool” stuff was that it would be donned only in appropriate settings:teen club, dates, etc. One day, I thought I’d be swift and fool the folks…placing some cool stuff in the same bag which held my laundered football uniform, I simply changed-out in the locker room. As concerned parents will, mine, somehow discovered my sneaky deed.
As unpopular as “seat warming” appears to be among the enlightened educational crowd, this is exactly the reception which awaited me, and my generation, when we blatantly took liberties which were in direct violation of prescribed standards of dress and behavior. Several decades later, there appears to be much “poo poo”ing over this seemingly draconian means of rearing kids to be responsible adults. Merits and demerits can be tossed back and forth on the field of hindsight as to wheather the disciplinary measures of the mid-20th Century were appropriate. However, I feel that most, if not all, from that particular era will agree on one thing…IT WORKED! Will the same be said, fifty years from now, on the “disciplinary controls” of the early 21st Century?
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
5:47 pm
Gary Klahr: As an person who served for the U.S. why did you and all others wear uniforms. Soldiers, Police, Fireman, Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers (Suits), Judges you get my point.
You are not correct in your assumption. Clayton GA students need discipline as well as directions. Uniforms are a drop in the bucket compared to what these students and parents really need to concentrate on like these students ARE NOT BEING PREPARED for the real world–If they can’t wear a uniform for 7 hours of school then I am sure they will not want to wear a suit for a job interview(low or high paying) because it strips their individuality.
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
6:03 pm
Oh yeah, Mcdonalds and Burger King you must wear a uniform. I guess if you are being paid (money) it is different than being paid with (knowledge).
Uniforms in all Schools.
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
6:09 pm
Gary Klahr:For example, in the NEWSOM case in Va., a kid wore an NRA tee in violation of a school rule against shirts depicting “violence” in any way.
I guess it would be okay for a pro-lifer to wear a t-shirt in school depicting a fetus who has been removed from womb before time. OR a person who is for terrorism to wear a t-shirt promoting killing people on a t-shirt in school. Maybe someone could wear it as a Judge in the courtroom. I doubt that would be offensive.
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
6:13 pm
Gary Klahr: why should good kids be punished for wearing totally-appropriate clothes they have worn since K.
They grew out of their K clothes and have graduated to wearing clothes that is off-base and offensive. Since you are a proponent when Pres O won a student worn a shirt with his picture in return the teacher (anti-O) made a mention. The student called the teacher all types of inappropriate names and even threatened the teacher. I guess that is what the learning environment should become in Clayton.
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
6:16 pm
Christina: 100% correct. But the parents rather seen them in their ORANGE uniforms as oppose to a variety of colorful uniforms.
The HS can wear black, beige, blue, grey with color combo shirts. What is the big deal?
Wide Awake
December 15th, 2009
6:19 pm
Gary Klahr: the “Student of CCPS” you are giving ideas to goes to open campus–that is the school where they send those who can’t make it in their regular zoned schools based on behavior or academics.