128 students suspended at Ind. school

Cathy Kearns wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
halfway between the hip bone and knee, go with that. But the finger tip
rule never worked.

However '2 inches above the knee wouldn't work either, since for a girl
with short legs, that's a shorter skirt than for a girl with long legs.

This is exactly my point. Either rule is unfair to someone. But, an x
number of inches above the knee rule means all kids could wear shorts. The
finger tip definition means some kids, whose fingertips hit their knees, can
only wear capris. The fairer rule is the halfway (or two thirds of the way)
between hip bone and knee, but that is harder to enforce. Perhaps what
could be done is if the skirt or shorts look too short, then measure. Most
the time you can tell if it's too short, and fingertips or x inches above
the knee might still show it's okay.


But MY point is that the principles aren't standing at the door
measuring every skirt or pair of shorts that walks throught the door.
For MOST people (and preumably this is the intent of the rule), the
ends of the fingers come to roughly mid-thigh. So, if a skirt/shorts
looks shorter than that, the kid might be pulled aside and checked to
see if the clothing meets the rules. A skirt that brushes the knees, or
comes a little above, wouldn't even trigger the radar. But if, as
with your kids, the ends of the fingers come to the knees, EVEN if the
kid were pulled aside for some reason (and it's unlikely that they
would be if the skirt was in the spirit of the dress code), it would
then be obvious that HER arms were very long, and the standards would
have to be applied differently.



Though I'd love to hear what the "see through" criteria is.

Not sure. Presumably it would be something that gives a clear view of
the details of the underwear ...

Naomi

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"Jen" wrote in message
...
I would hate for my daughter to go to a school without a uniform,
individual expression and creativity in the choice of clothes, should be
at home, not school.

I guess I wouldn't mind if my kids' school had uniforms, except for the
added laundry and the slight stress of having to make sure they

I find there's *less* laundry. Most of the time she doesn't bother changing
out of her uniform after school. And as I mentioned before it's easier to
get away with wearing it for a couple of days. So really there's only the
uniforms through the weekdays, and one or two other sets of clothes on the
weekends.

Jen

nimue wrote:
wrote:
snip

But, in any case, you presumably are aware of the dress code. If a
denim skirt isn't permitted, presumably some other sort of skirt of
acceptable legnth is permitted. (In a fabric that would be far cooler
than denim.)

Oh, no, a denim skirt is fine. The skirt's length created the issue. It
ended just above her knee and was completely appropriate, imo. In the
opinion of the dean, the girl looked inappropriate. It's this kind of thing
that drives me crazy. There are teachers and administrators who wear
shorter skirts. This just turned into a bullying opportunity for the dean
and I was damned if I was going to see this kid -- who looked fine -- miss
her class.

Well, it seems to me that the ISSUE here wasn't the specifics of the
dress code (though if the code forbids skirts above the knee and tank
tops of any description, it should have been clear to the girl in
question), but the way the dean chose to enforce it. Bullying and
humiliation are NOT part of any sort of dress code enforcement.

Naomi

"Jen" wrote in
:


"nimue" wrote in message
...
L. wrote:
nimue wrote:

Clearly they are NOT -- they are for teaching kids the
appropriate way to dress -- as teenagers!! In high
school!! How does wearing baggy pants affect a child's
education? Why must we always be controlling,
controlling, controlling these kids? This sends the
message that we care more about what you look like than
if you learn, that appearance is more important than
education. I don't give a **** what my students are
wearing as long as they are in class!!!! Let them have
their little teenage nonsense. Let them know they can
BE THEMSELVES and still learn, still enjoy learning!

ITA. I will refuse to send DS to a school that has a
dress code, other than for safety reasons. This kind of
crap is petty and ridiculous, and it squelches individual
expression and creativity.


I would hate for my daughter to go to a school without a
uniform, individual expression and creativity in the choice
of clothes, should be at home, not school. It seems to me
it would be so hard *to keep up with the Joneses*. The kids
that have more money would wear the more expensive and
fashionable clothes, the poorer kids would have difficulty.
Wearing a uniform you can get away with wearing clothes
for 2 days, occasionally more- with casual clothes, it
would be obvious, and the pressure would be on to change
daily. I think there's a lot of good reasons for uniforms.
Like someone else said, it just needs to be a specific
colour even.

i'm glad i don't have girls... but then, it was never an
issue for *me* to keep up with fads when i was in school
either. we were under quite a large financial constraint from
mid to late 60s, as my dad had a startup company (in the
basement). i got 2 dresses, 2 blouses & a skirt for the school
year (slacks not allowed until my junior year in high school.
i did wear shorts under my school clothes though. i'm hardly a
girly girl). the 2 dresses were always identical except for
color... oh, & my mom *made* them. fashion faux pas right
there, let me tell you
kids at school made bets on which dress i'd wear. big deal.
lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

nimue wrote:
wrote:
snip

No hats or
bandanas or heavy coats.

Uh, what if it's cold?

If the school is so cold that you have to walk around in a parka,
there is probably something wrong with the heating, and the school
would be aware of it.

The school's not. It's that cold outside. Not everyone has a car, you
know. Our kids take the subway or the bus to school. They walk to the
subway or the bus and then they walk to school. They have no lockers.
Therefore, they can have their coats. That has never been a part of our
dress code. I did once work in a room that had no heat and that was never
fixed.

(Shaina's middle school was overly abundantly
air conditioned. She often wore a light jacket or sweater, and that
was fine. The idea is that when you come inside, you take off your
outdoor gear and put it in your locker.)

No school I have worked in had lockers for the kids.

Then, presumably, no school you ever worked in had a dress code that
didn't permit heavy coats. Right? Dress codes are NOT designed to be
viscious or impossible to enforce. Our schools have lockers.
Therefore, unless the heat is malfunctioning (which has never happened
in the time that Shaina's been in middle/high school), there would be
no reason to wear heavy, outdoor coats. And if the heat WERE
malfunctioning, the teachers would be aware of it and notify the
administration,and either school would be closed until it was fixed, or
the kids would be allowed to dress for the climate.

Naomi

"nimue" wrote in message
...
Jen wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827/..._st/dress_code

128 students suspended at Ind. school
Classrooms were a little less crowded at Morton High School on the
first day
of classes: 128 students were sent home for wearing the wrong
clothes.


Why not a proper uniform, with a range of things to cover lots of
tastes and individuality, but not turning it into a fashion show.

Jen

Well, in NYC the public schools cannot mandate uniforms. Even if we
could,
I don't know if I think they are such a good idea.

Really? http://schools.nyc.gov/doefacts/fact...ils.aspx?id=75

According to the NYC DOE: "Individual schools determine whether to have
uniforms. A student attending a school with a uniform can get an exemption
from the policy."

NYC schools may mandate uniforms, although individual students can get an
exemption.

Jeff



--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah

"Barbara" wrote in message
ups.com...
nimue wrote:
Jen wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827/..._st/dress_code

128 students suspended at Ind. school
Classrooms were a little less crowded at Morton High School on the
first day
of classes: 128 students were sent home for wearing the wrong
clothes.


Why not a proper uniform, with a range of things to cover lots of
tastes and individuality, but not turning it into a fashion show.

Jen

Well, in NYC the public schools cannot mandate uniforms. Even if we
could,
I don't know if I think they are such a good idea.

Really? I am aware of several public schools in NYC that have
mandated, well, if not uniforms, the closest thing to it. One's best
friend is in a G&T program that requires the kids to wear yellow polo
shirts and blue bottoms (pants or skirts). A middle school that I pass
on my way to work has mandated white shirts and dark bottoms (no
jeans). At least with respect to the middle school, the policy was
instituted at the behest of the parents.

One reason for having uniforms is so that students can easily be spotted as
belonging to a certian group. For example, white shirts and blue pants for
the kids going to the school on the fourth floor, yellow shirts and blue
pants for the third floor, etc. They can also have different colors for
different grades. In NYC, there are often different schools in the same
building.

Jeff
Barbara

In article , nimue says...

wrote:
snip

But, in any case, you presumably are aware of the dress code. If a
denim skirt isn't permitted, presumably some other sort of skirt of
acceptable legnth is permitted. (In a fabric that would be far cooler
than denim.)

Oh, no, a denim skirt is fine. The skirt's length created the issue. It
ended just above her knee and was completely appropriate, imo. In the
opinion of the dean, the girl looked inappropriate. It's this kind of thing
that drives me crazy. There are teachers and administrators who wear
shorter skirts. This just turned into a bullying opportunity for the dean
and I was damned if I was going to see this kid -- who looked fine -- miss
her class.

From your telling, it sounds like the tank top was the problem.

As for your opinion that she "looked fine", since you seem primed to stamp just
about anything as "fine", I'm not ready to take your opinion on it.

The thing is - the girl has many options NOT to be pushing the dress code
envelope. Like I said before, it's as easy as picking up a few short-sleeve
tops for her denim skirt (and no, I don't for a minute beleive that this is a
financial burden for the poor - there are plenty of ordinary short-sleeve T's
that cost as much or even less than any tank!)


If she can't wear a tank top, surely she can wear a
short sleeved blouse or polo.

Again, she looked fine and teachers and administrators where sleeveless
shirts all the time. They look appropriate and so did this modest tank top
on this teenage girl.

There's a difference between tanks and sleeveless. The line has to be drawn
somewhere.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

nimue wrote:
toypup wrote:

I am in NYC, honey. Nothing is that cheap. Furthermore, maybe our kids
want to look cute, nice, as close to fashionable as they can get. They can't
spend the money rich and middle-class kids can. It is not as easy to find
something that fits and makes the kid feel good at Goodwill as it is at Old
Navy. They do the best they can and as I said and keep saying, this girl
looked fine.

Old Navy? I've never shopped at Old Navy. We look in there from time
to time, but it's usually too expensive for us. (Esp. for a growing
adolescent.) We usually shop at Target/K-Mart, and find plenty of
nice, dress-code acceptable clothing for reasonable prices. (In fact,
the outfit *I'm* wearing today is from the sale rack at K-Mart. A navy
linen pant suit (pants and jacket), for which I paid about $15 for the
pair. A red tee shirt that was on sale for about $4. Fine for work,
fine for class. (I'm taking classes, though the university has no dress
code ...) And entirely within the dress code if Shaina were to wear it
to school.(In a smaller size, of course.) They commonly have tee's,
polos and the like for around $5, pants for under $10. (Skirts are more
of a challenge, because most of them ARE too short, but they don't tend
to have much of a selection anyway.)


I think the dress code is unclear in my school and enforced by erratically
and often with great insensitivity, even cruelty.

Right. And as noted in another post, THAT is the issue, not the code
itself.

Naomi

In article , nimue says...

toypup wrote:
snip

She could have spent the money she spent on her illegal outfit for
something that conformed to the school rules. That she did not do
that and now must pay for another outfit is her problem.

That can be a big problem for a 14 year old in foster care, or a homeless
shelter. I would rather that she put her energy into class.

However, I
did used to shop at Goodwill when we were poor and clothing was 25
cents a pound, literally. Maybe it's more now, but it can't be much
and I'm sure she could find appropriate clothing there.

I am in NYC, honey. Nothing is that cheap. Furthermore, maybe our kids
want to look cute, nice, as close to fashionable as they can get. They can't
spend the money rich and middle-class kids can. It is not as easy to find
something that fits and makes the kid feel good at Goodwill as it is at Old
Navy. They do the best they can and as I said and keep saying, this girl
looked fine.

Wait wait wait. You're excusifying, plain and simple. How can I tell? When
one thing comes up, you say one thing in response. When something else comes
up, you say the opposite.

ARE the kids limited by financial resources or NOT??!? When I suggest the
tank-top girl can stock up on a few short sleeve tops, you wail about how can
her family afford it. When folks bring up second-hand clothing, you wail about
how the kids have to "feel good" - meaning according to you, they have to spend
money.

So I guess you have all your bases covered. You have a response for everything.
As long as you don't mind not making sense.

Look, the reason for dress codes in your case is to prevent certain excesses
(and it can get pretty excessive). And to provide an atmosphere where the kids
have to THINK a little about how they present themselves in an environment
they're to take seriously. It's about setting the stage for learning, about
fostering certain attitudes. And to prevent things like gang colors and other
distractions. And the lines have to be drawn somewhere.

If there are a lot of violations, the point has to be made somehow. This is how
this school did it. And early on, before classes really gear up. IMO it's all
about *preserving* learning time and maintaining a learning atmosphere.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm