128 students suspended at Ind. school

Jen wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , nimue
says...

Tori M wrote:
I found it to be distracting to be in classes with kids wearing
CoEd Naked shirts (until the school figured them out lol) This
was also the "start" of the baggy jeans to your ankles pants..
kids yanking them up all the time. I dont want to see anyones
undies. I dont see what the big deal is of wearing Jeans that fit
and then going home and changing and expressing themselves on
their own time. Some people might be suprised at how nice it is
to walk without your pants falling off all the time.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to suspend kids who violate the
dress code. Hello? The kids need to go to class to learn. We
should not punish
kids by taking away their opportunity and responsibility to learn.
That is
utterly counter-productive. Give the kids detention if you must,
just don't take them out of class for violating a dress code. They
need to know
that going to class and getting an education takes priority over
nearly everything.

OK - so you object to the punishment and not the rule?

I agree that suspension is a pretty unimaginative way to deal with
it.

to me: unimaginative = clear-cut. If you don't were the right dress,
you don't come to school.

So, how
about in-house detention, and in black slacks and white shirts as
required wear.
IF the parents can't support that (and run out and get the clothes),
then their
true value on education would be apparent. It would make the point,
and the
clothes would add the embarassment factor that would make the point
to the kids
in question.

Would you go along with that?

Banty

The kids were essentially sent home on the first day of school
because they either were not wearing appropriate attire or were using
cell phones. The student dress code is available on the internet and
presumable, students and parents were able to get a copy of it if
they didn't have it from the previous year. Clothing stores in the
area sell the apporpiate clothing that is consistant with the dress
code (no logos except school logos) in the appropriate color. I am
sure not only did the high school students get the message that only
appropriate clothing is to be worn, but the kids at the other two
high schools in the district and the lower grades got the message,
too.

If the policy is uniformly enforced, then it becomes a non-issue.

The kids have plenty of ways to express themselves with wearing
jewlry and othe ways. Hats and other colors are often allowed in
schools to decrease the visibility of gang symbols.

IMHO, the school did a good job.

IMO, any educator who deprives a child of time in class is an idiot. Why
couldn't she give the kids detention?


You would think just a warning, for the first day, would be enough.

I think that the principal was sending out a warning volley that
violations will not be tolerated, on a day that very little actual
teaching was likely to be accomplished in any event. Perhaps other
discipline will be explored as the school year progresses.

As a kid, I thought dress codes were silly. Many still are (anyone
else hear about Boston's ban on hoodies?). OTOH, I don't think that
anyone in my school sported visible thongs, crotch duster pants with
shirts that end inches above the waist, extremely low cut spaghetti
strapped shirts, skirts so short that the girl can't bedn over or even
lift her arms without showing off her underpnats, shirts with offensive
sayings or drug logos, pants that fall so low on the hips that a good 4
inches of boxer shorts are visible, pajama bottoms in lieu of pants,
yadda yadda yadda. I've seen all of these things, and have no problem
with schools banning them.

Barbara

nimue wrote:
Barbara wrote:
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.

Sounds like a charter school. I teach at a public school. We can have
uniforms, but we cannot require them. Kids can opt out, so what's the
point?

Sorry, no. Neither one is a charter school. Both are public schools
in marginal neighborhoods. And to the best of my knowledge, kids
cannot opt out in either school.

Barbara

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.

Barbara

--
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

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
skirts and shorts have to be longer than the tips of the fingers held
at the sides;

This is the one that always ticks me off. By definition, junior high and
high school kids are teens, they are still growing. My girls had arms and
legs that grew first. Their fingers touched their knees. Some kids arms and
legs grow last, they can wear incredibly short skirts. Now these kids are
already too body conscious and they come up with rules that point out how
different they are. That hits me as really stupid. If you want skirts and
shorts two inches above the knee, go with that. If you want shorts that end
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.
I'm sure that there is common sense here. If a girl REALLY has arms so
long (or legs so short) that her fingertips are below her knees, it
would be obvious, right? (IME, Shaina wouldn't WANT to wear dresses
that are too short for code, so it's a non-issue for us. Shorts are
more of an issue, simply because it's almost impossible to find shorts
long enough. We have to shop in the boy's department to find them.)

Naomi

nimue wrote:
hedgehog42 wrote:
snip

No hats or
bandanas or heavy coats.

Uh, what if it's cold?

Sweaters?

Even in Wisconsin during 20-below weather, this is rarely an issue. If
the boiler's not working, they'll make an exception.

Our kids take public transportation to school and they don't have lockers.
They have to have those heavy coats in the NYC winter.

Well, in our schools the kids DO have lockers. They are, in fact,
required to put not only their coats, but their backpacks in them. I
assure you that no-one is expecting the kids to walk (even to the
bus-stop) in winter without a coat on!

Naomi

Barbara wrote:
Jen wrote:
.

As a kid, I thought dress codes were silly. Many still are (anyone
else hear about Boston's ban on hoodies?). OTOH, I don't think that
anyone in my school sported visible thongs, crotch duster pants with
shirts that end inches above the waist, extremely low cut spaghetti
strapped shirts, skirts so short that the girl can't bedn over or even
lift her arms without showing off her underpnats, shirts with offensive
sayings or drug logos, pants that fall so low on the hips that a good 4
inches of boxer shorts are visible, pajama bottoms in lieu of pants,
yadda yadda yadda. I've seen all of these things, and have no problem
with schools banning them.

I would have liked a dress code in MY high school. While I wore the
standard 1970's 'uniform' of jeans and tee shirts (usually with
non-offensive slogans/pictures) in summer, and flannel shirts in
winter; plenty of kids came to school in warm weather in hot pants and
halter or tube tops. And yeah, it made me uncomfortable. (We weren't
even allowed to wear shorts -- but that was my mother's dress code, not
the school's.)

Naomi


Barbara

"nimue" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Jeff wrote:
(Religious headcoverings are exempt.) No
pajamas. And nothing likely to damage school property. (Cleats on
shoes or hard metal trimmings on clothing.) The code concludes with
something like "If in doubt, don't wear it."

Look, there are some good ideas here, but when you try to enforce this,
you
will find that members of the school staff interpret these rules
differently. I guess my main point is I don't want anyone missing class
because her shirt is low cut.

That is why at our school, the rules are very specific. The shirts have to
tuck in and stay in when the arms are raised, no exceptions. The skirts can
be no shorter than the middle finger when the arms are by the sides, no
exceptions. The shorts can be no longer than 2 inches below the knees nor
shorter than the middle finger when the arms are by the side and they cannot
be more than 4 inches wider than the knee and they can't be tight and they
must be hemmed. If they are cuffed, they must be hemmed to stay cuffed.
The rules fill an entire page in very small print. If you wonder if they
are enforced, yes they most definitely are.

nimue wrote:
Banty wrote:
In article , nimue

What I'm really trying to get at, though, is whether you're more up
in arms about the dress code, or the punishment.

The punishment, absolutely. It is idiotic and counter-productive to take a
kid out of class as a punishment. We are desperately trying to get them to
learn! Why the hell would we take them out of class if we want them in
class? It makes no sense.

Becauase much of the justification for dress codes is that they ban
clothing that is distracting to OTHER students. So, if the kid stays
in class, she prevents 29 students from learning. If she is sent home,
only one kid is prevented from learning.

Naomi

wrote in message
ups.com...

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
skirts and shorts have to be longer than the tips of the fingers
held
at the sides;

This is the one that always ticks me off. By definition, junior high
and
high school kids are teens, they are still growing. My girls had arms
and
legs that grew first. Their fingers touched their knees. Some kids arms
and
legs grow last, they can wear incredibly short skirts. Now these kids
are
already too body conscious and they come up with rules that point out
how
different they are. That hits me as really stupid. If you want skirts
and
shorts two inches above the knee, go with that. If you want shorts that
end
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.

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

"nimue" wrote in message
...
Banty wrote:
In article , nimue
says...


The problem with the dress code is that kids in perfectly respectable
outfits are sent home. In fact, it's usually the girls who are
sent home, at least in my school. I have argued with deans that
tell me that a young girl in a tank top and a jean skirt that stops
just above the knee should be sent home because she is violating
dress code. I tell them it's hot; we have no air conditioning, and
this kid is going to miss her first period English exam. It makes
me sick.

And whose problem is that?

It's her problem and it's the school's problem. If this kid fails her
Regents, WE pay. Thanks No Child Left Behind. Anyway, this kid (I am
thinking of a specific case) looked totally fine to me. She just wound up
embarrassed and crying because she was told she looked inappropriate, and
she was told this by a male dean. It's really easy to make high school
girls feel terrible about themselves and that is what happened here -- and
for NOTHING! She looked fine! There was nothing slutty or even
inappropriate about her tank top or her jean skirt.

It was against school rules. I have a hard time believing she didn't know
what the rules are.



She can't stock up on a few light cotton
short sleeve tops for school? The dress code is distributed to all
students, right? (In our district, the parents have to sign it so
there are no plaintive excuses about unseen policies).

Actually, our kids are Title 1 kids -- poor. Very poor. We are dealing
with a whole mess of issues here. Was the dress code distributed? Maybe.

Don't you know? It's your school. I'll be it was distributed. If not, you
can take that task over. You can read it over the PA system to make sure
those kids who don't read can understand it.

Did the kids read it and understand it? Maybe. Could their parents?
Maybe. Could they afford to buy new clothes? Maybe.

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. 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.

Shouldn't we be
focusing on keeping these kids in class and learning? Definitely.

If they are motivated to learn, they will conform to the dress code. Kids
who don't want to learn won't learn and tend to be disruptive. Find a way
to motivate them and they will conform to the dress code like everyone else.

"toypup" wrote in message
m...
pay for another outfit is her problem. However, I did used to shop at
Goodwill when we were poor and clothing was 25 cents a pound, literally.

Oh my gosh, at the Goodwill here (and we're not poor! I just don't see the
point in buying new outwear), a shirt alone is at least $2. Jeans are at
least $4 for adults. I can buy from the bargain rack at Old Navy for the
same price as our Goodwills lol
Now paperback books there, they are 25 cents.
Marie