Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Mandatory School Uniforms
Mandatory School Uniforms
« previous page 12
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by parakeet on Sun Sep 25th at 6:19pm 2005

Heh , i enjoyed having mandatory uniforms and it actually solved a lot of problems.. I find myself still wearing shirts similar to the uniform even though i go to a public school now.

Message submitted 12 minutes after original post:

I'm extremely right-wing... here.

but in all seriousness, ONE parent needs to stay home of thier own volition if there's kids. they can't be taught by the TV, because TV is a sex/violence/cussword box. And no kid wants to watch Barney when he can figure out dad's passcode and watch "debbie does dallas."

^--- from nickels *quoting system isnt working >_<

I completly agree with this , the tv not only has gotten more and more graphic also parents have stopped caring what their kids watch . SOMEBODY needs to stay at home , be it the father or the mother , otherwise the kid wont be raised propperly.

It prevents the kid from having problems at school from lack of attention from parents *seen this a LOT now days* but it also gives the kid a sense of moral ground , and whats right and wrong. Morals are partially there to make life easier , make you happier and prevent a lot of s**t from happening <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">.


I've had fun watching kids , AND definently more fun than stacking papers. you dont have to work any certain hours or anything , they've got it made to a degree and have really taken advantage of it. if i was a girl i'd never wanna work at a job , i'd rather clean the house and just screw around. lol.

nuff said bring out the uniforms =p .. *as long as it isnt some monopoly thing going on*


.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by G4MER on Sun Sep 25th at 8:16pm 2005

Some interresting answers thus far. You can curb a kids dress with out resorting to a uniform. Some of the schools here do that, they have rules that certian items can not be worn to the school, like raiders hats or head wraps, or sport team jerseys.. and that seems to allow the kids to still dress in their own clothes with out resorting to a uniform.

I still think that if your going to a public school and they have a uniform policy the shool should shell out the bucks for the damn thing.

As for the parent at home thing.. In the UK I dont know how you all live, but in the USA, a lot of families have a parent or a guardian at home, its the law up until the age of 13 that your kids can not be home alone. Well at least in Texas, and New Mexico.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Underdog on Mon Sep 26th at 12:34am 2005

? quoting Andrei


Yes and no.

The difference is that, with a dress code, you can still dress however you like as long as you don't cross a certain line. Now how liberal the dress code is can vary from school to school or even from country to country. True, if the dress code is very strict then there's not a big difference between it and mandatory uniforms.

Herein lies the dilemma. To many people have their own notions of "to strict" I am sorry to say this but most people simply have to have others thinking for them because of their own belief system. Face it, people simply believe they have to god given right to do almost anything they please. When it reaches this point, things like mandatory dress codes are a must. Its that simple.If you like, we can have a thread that deals with peoples perceived rights vs. their true rights. I would so LOVE to have a thread like that. I am betting that there are many more liberals here than not. Liberals tend to think the world is theirs to play with.

? quoting Cash Car Star
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life.

I am betting that you and I would get along smashingly well. You give off an aura I like. Course you may not see it in a similar fashion but liking someone never had to be a two way endeavor. THAT was not intended as it read either it was intended exactly how I wrote it.




There is no history until something happens, then there is.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 1:38am 2005

? quoting Cash Car Star
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life. I'd probably shout at you a lot. Your brief post is filled with so many over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations that someone could write a thesis discussing them.

Start writing, man. If you think that kids should be raised by the TV, tell me why. Why shouldn't a parent stay at home?




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Crono on Mon Sep 26th at 2:25am 2005

One good reason is that they probably can't afford to stay at home. Both parents need to work. I know my parents couldn't afford much of anything with only one person working, I wasn't "raised by TV" though. When I was younger I was in daycare or something that was at my school, and when my parents were done with work, they'd come get me.

However, I think, for the first 5 years or so of the child's life, someone should be at home, simply because, the child has nothing to do during the day (school) ... and those are pretty impressionable years. Other then that ... you have to make compromises.

Although, Nickel, I think you may be assuming the parents are completely responsible about the timing. If not ... I don't understand how they could even sustain themselves and their child if they're home all day. (Past government aid)


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 3:45am 2005

If the parents are so poor that they both have to work, then how are they affording daycare?

SOMEBODY has to watch the kids during the day. If they're left alone, they don't LEARN anything that they are supposed to be learning, and they end up selfish, rude, little animals who get diagnosed with ADHD when thier parents can't control them because they never established an order of authority because they were never there.

There are always after-school programs that kids can be a part of after they start kindergarten, but yeah, until age 5 give the kids a fighting chance!




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Crono on Mon Sep 26th at 4:01am 2005

Day care is very cheap, man. We're talking maybe $13 a week (especially if it's one ran out of a public school. They KNOW the parents can't afford more). Compared to the 1,500 or so that specific parent would clear a month ... you can see how it balances out, right?

I had my mom home most of the time before I started school, but honestly, around age 4 if you need money, you need money. Before that you'd either live in a less than nice place, or none of this is a problem.

I think the people you're really thinking of are people who have the money to take care of their children, and they just don't spend time with them or something as such.

And, I never said they wouldn't be watched during the day, did I?


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 4:46am 2005

So, who's watching them during the day?

and even if they're watched at a daycare, what are they learning, my brother was always in a daycare: and he STILL ended up as a selfish bastard. and guess what... he's "got ADHD."

seriously, he came home and told mom that they just sleep or eat cheerios all day at these places. they're not getting books read to them and doing stimulation activities like they would if thier mom or dad was home caring for them. Plenty of people get by with just one income, and they have for years.

This same brother I am talking about is going to be the same way. He wants to live the good life but he's getting his girlfreind knocked up and so he KNOWS he's going to have a kid and that births are expensive, yet he STILL goes and buys a 42" TV for his house. So it's not like ALL parents are managing thier funds properly like yours might have.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Crono on Mon Sep 26th at 4:57am 2005

They're in school ... how many time do I need to say that?

Day care, in conjunction with school, only lasts a couple hours. Who said mine were managing their funds properly? Like I said, both of my parents needed to work ... but that's besides the point.

What you're saying is an incredible generalization and over simplification of the situation. If you want to go on a rant on how children don't learn during daycare, then you should whine more about the lack of learning in schools ... since chances are they're not learning much there either.


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 5:02am 2005

maybe you should say it a few more times. How old are these kids we're talking about, because if they are under the age of five, they're not in public school...

If they're over 5 they're at least in kindergarten and can stay after school in Latchkey, or sports if thier parents can't pick them up til later.

And just because someone is voicing a complaint and you don't know why, doesnt mean that they are whining.

I think we got our wires crossed somewhere along the line and are not talking about the same thing, so WHAT are you talking about?

[edit] And it's not that i'm ranting about how they dont learn during daycare, its that they aren't learning ANYTHINg when they're home along watching TV with no parents there.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Crono on Mon Sep 26th at 5:31am 2005

I'm talking about 1st/2nd to 5th grade. Obviously, if you have a toddler or something as such, if you do work I would hope it isn't full time, since in their life those are more impressionable years.

There are educational TV programs, just to point that out (and I'm not talking about barney). However, you're assuming that the parents aren't the ones who would sit their kids in front of the TV anyway. In a lot of cases, the parents are the reason why the kids aren't learning anything. Even IF the kid sat in front of a TV all day, the parents still have time with them when they see them and if they don't take advantage of that anyway ... the entire point you're making is rather flawed.

A lot of kids don't have an interest in learning a lot of things because of their parents attitude and interests.

I said you were whining because you just keep saying the same thing from a very limited point of view, at least that's the way it seems based on you saying, "parent at home = smarter kid" ... which is assuming so many things, some of a which I've listed here.

Also, if the kids are in daycare, and going to school, as I just said, daycare is maybe three hours where the kids can run around and play, something which is less frequent now. Lunch time is what? 30 minutes? They get recess two times (when I was in elementary anyway) which are 15 minutes each. That's only 1 hour in a 7 to 8 hour school day.

Not to mention, as I said, the public school system sucks balls anyway, the kids would probably learn more from certain TV programs. For things like Math and basic English (or whatever language) the parents should be involved with this anyway, but if they aren't that's kind of adding to the problem and making this entire situation completely different.


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 5:55am 2005

I was talking about kids who are not school-age yet. Why the hell would a parent need to stay home during the day if thier kid is in school all day?

And yes,

Parent @ home = smarter kid IF parent = Caring AND nurturing NOT deadbeat.

And you just said what i've been getting at for the past few days on this thread: Bad parenting is responsible for a LOT of kid's and hence, society's problems these days. (and we push it off on ADHD) And a part of bad parenting is not being there for your kids. Not being there for your young child during the day, and leaving them with thier older sibling is gonna keep them from killing themselves most likely, but it's not going to teach them anything that they need to know.

And, yes, the public school system has its flaws, and it has gotten MUCH worse over the years. (Let no one refute this until they've worked at a school district for 7 years as I have.)

Man, look something is going wrong with todays kids and there can be no doubt about that. a lot of things are responsible, and one of them is bad parenting and bad decisions made by adults in general concerning the childs welfare. One of these decisions is leaving young children home alone: leaving them to thier own devices.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Cash Car Star on Mon Sep 26th at 6:47am 2005

? quoting Nickelplate
? quoting Cash Car Star
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life. I'd probably shout at you a lot. Your brief post is filled with so many over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations that someone could write a thesis discussing them.

Start writing, man. If you think that kids should be raised by the TV, tell me why. Why shouldn't a parent stay at home?

There's one such obvious assumptional jump that is completely and entirely baseless and unnecessary. Where is it written that the only recourse for not having a parent quit his/her job to raise kids is to have a television do the raising? You jump to these sorts of conclusions with little provocation or justification. Certainly what you're proposing is at its core a fairly healthy, a traditional method to raise a child. It's just not the only way. I have coworkers that are raising young children while retaining their jobs. They get a little help here and there from their parents and friends, and it's almost insulting to me for you to tell me that these fine human beings are doing a poor job raising their daughters.

I'm going to go ahead an assume that you're a true pro-lifer. That means, every child, no matter how he or she was conceived, deserves to be born and given a chance in life. What then for single parent households? Certainly, you'll say less than ideal and regretable, but that does not change the inherent truth of the situation. Frankly, a think a child in those situations would best be served by having a parent who worked some of the time.

I don't have to prove that your proposed converse to your statement is true: that television is a suitable teaching tool which may replace parents. I just have to prove that your 'universal' truth is not valid in all contexts.

? quoting Nickelplate
If the parents are so poor that they both have to work, then how are they affording daycare?
Figured I'd tackle this individual point (although it will be a little overly academic without graphs to show what I mean better).

Let's say it takes $A to take care of one child for one hour (not talking about the cost of daycare, but the cost incurred by any caregiver).

The cost to take care of two children is not $2A. It will be an amount smaller than $(A+B) where B < A. Continuining on, three kids is $(A+B+C) where C < B and so on and so forth. At some point, it becomes too much work for one person, and it starts working back the other way, to where the next child costs $A again and then even more than that afterwards. The cost associated with each individual additional child is called the marginal cost. It is what drives economics of scale.

The rate at which the day care center will charge for each child that they take care of will be the average marginal cost of all the children there, plus some upcharge for their service which I'll call X. $(Avg(A,B,C...)+X) is going to turn out to be less than $A, otherwise there'd be no one letting the day care center take care of their children, it'd go bankrupt, and people would be out of jobs and investment money. If this hourly rate is less than whatever marginal income the family is going to get by having a second parent working, then it is economically advantageous to work that second job, even though it is likely a portion of that money is going to go straight to the day care.

I feel I should also mention that it is also conceivable that the two parents work jobs that allow at least one of them to be home almost all of the time. Surprise, surprise, not all jobs are 9 to 5, especially in the service sector.





Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Sep 26th at 7:33am 2005

Just because I mentioned one such alternative to parent's staying home, doesn't mean that I think that it is the only alternative/ I know there are other alternatives, such as (as I;ve already mentioned) Daycare, babysitters, older siblings. But nobody (in most cases) is going to care about your child more than you. And if you're not home with them, then it follows that they would be with someone who doesn't care about them as much as you do, barring the circumstances of when they are with thier grandparents or other relatives other than siblings (who don't hold the same feelings as parents.)

And yeah. you can be "doing your best" to raise a child and still not be doing it right. I don't know anything about the circumstances of your friends, so I couldn't say anything about them. But you can be the most "fine human being" in the world and still not do something right.

Single-parent households have been proven to be detrimental to a child's development no matter what kind of daycare the kid's in.

"The Future of Children:" A program/study done by Princeton University and The Brookings Institition, says

"Researchers have several theories to explain why children growing up with single parents have an elevated risk of experiencing cognitive, social, and emotional problems. Most refer either to the economic and parental resources available to children or to the stressful events and circumstances to which these children must adapt. "

Read the article here http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=290693
I got the quote from page 5.

Since I've never said: "Either kids are raised by a parent who stays at home OR they are watchin' TV." And i've never claimed it as a "universal truth," you need to present me with less pathos.

Furthermore, Since these fine citizens you've mentioned have, by your own admission, "help here and there from their parents and friends" they do not fit into the group of children I am talking about.

For your reference, the group i am talking about the children that are left alone at home (or with siblings) while thier parents are working.

_______________________________

And again, "Surprise, Surprise," You've managed to misinterpret my words again...

I never said that "Both parents working = bad parenting" i said that "not being there for your kids = bad parenting" and your example of parents working jobs that complement eachother's timetable just doesn't fit because someone IS there for the kid.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by BlisTer on Tue Sep 27th at 3:41pm 2005

? quoting Cash Car Star
over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations

? quoting Crono
What you're saying is an incredible generalization and over simplification of the situation. If you want to go on a rant on how children don't learn during daycare, then you should whine more about...

they do have a point here nickel. moreover, you present your opinions as the one-and-only truth. (another example is in madedog's gf thread). the more extreme these opinions are, the more likely you're going to piss ppl off. i'm a very tolerant person but if someone says "moms belong at home" and then saying "i'm serious" then i react. i'm for freedom of opinion, even if you're extremely right wing, but softening your wisdom by saying "imo" once in a while wouldn't be a bad thing.




These words are my diaries screaming out loud



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Loco on Tue Sep 27th at 5:49pm 2005

? quote:
I never said that "Both parents working = bad parenting" i said that "not being there for your kids = bad parenting" and your example of parents working jobs that complement eachother's timetable just doesn't fit because someone IS there for the kid.

I can't say I've completely followed Nickel's one-man campaign, but on this point I will support him. I suspect most of us would agree that we'd rather be raised by a parent than brother/sister/whoever in an ideal world (circumstances not-withstanding). On that much I would agree.

At a very base level, you could (somewhat questionably and dubiously), compare the behaviour of children in Victorian England and modern England, and then ask whether or not Victorian values are possibly slightly better, and something we should be moving back towards, having over-exercised the argument of "rights". As I said, it's a dubious argument, and one that could probably be picked apart, but on the face of it the argument may seem to work, imo.

As I've said, I haven't read every word of every post, so I'm probably missing the point. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">



My site



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by rival on Tue Sep 27th at 6:09pm 2005

? quoting Loco

? quote:
you cant wear a school uniform outside school, or you would just look pretty gay, and that means you have spend money on school clothes and other clothes.
Hmmm... not sure I agree on that point entirely. The principle of school uniform isn't based on money. In terms of looking "pretty gay", if you have enough people wearing uniform, suddenly it becomes the norm. Over here wearing uniform outside school isn't forbidden, and people often are walking quite a distance to/from school. The whole point of having a load of youths who are looking "pretty gay" is that it stops them from doing anything stupid - like throwing bricks at trains. It gives them and identity as part of a school, effectively branding them in big red letters "I am from school X - if I've done anything idiotic you will be able to trace me". The other thing is, not all uniform does look "pretty gay". My school uniform for example, is any shirt, blazer, tie, and grey trousers. It's actually quite smart, and whilst it identifies you as part of the school, it doesn't make you look "gay".

? quote:
all popular kids either follow my route of outfit or just wear what they want. you can instantly recognized a nerd or a first year by their uniform

This is nothing personal, but often particularly "popular kids" are also trouble makers in the UK's new "yob-culture". Subsequently, forcing them to become one of the crowd and not desperately seek attention through wearing whatever clothing is very much a good thing.

Finally, in terms of social segregation, here it would be very unusual to have third formers mixing with sixth formers for example. There is a natural social hierachy anyway, so it's not actually a problem in the slightest. Everybody has to wear the same thing anyway, one of the bonuses of having uniform rather than a dress code.

Anyway, that's just my take on it.


what i meant was if you got up on a saturday and instead of putting on normal clothles you slip into your school uniform. there is nothing wrong with walking to a home that is far away in a school uniform. also, my bad wording, 'pretty gay' i should rephrase as 'stupid'. your mention of the yob culture is completely true, i agree. but in my school it is rare. more common among fifth years actually. but we never get any serious cases (okay they are not unheard of just rare). i see what point you are making, but it was just my bad choice of words - i dont think school uniforms make you look 'gay'! plenty of these 'popular kids' i speak of wear the full school uniform. while i disagree with uniform, because i believe it can segregate people just as much as normal clothes, i wont say you're a bastard because you wear one.




Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
&quot;I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!&quot;



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Loco on Tue Sep 27th at 7:37pm 2005

? quote:
what i meant was if you got up on a saturday and instead of putting on normal clothles you slip into your school uniform. there is nothing wrong with walking to a home that is far away in a school uniform. also, my bad wording, 'pretty gay' i should rephrase as 'stupid'. your mention of the yob culture is completely true, i agree. but in my school it is rare. more common among fifth years actually. but we never get any serious cases (okay they are not unheard of just rare). i see what point you are making, but it was just my bad choice of words - i dont think school uniforms make you look 'gay'! plenty of these 'popular kids' i speak of wear the full school uniform. while i disagree with uniform, because i believe it can segregate people just as much as normal clothes, i wont say you're a bastard because you wear one.

Okay. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> My example of the "yob culture" is,sadly, very much a British one, what with the infamous binge-drinking etc. In such circumstances, a return to slightly less liberal values may be one of the first measures, whether or not you disagree with the principles. IMHO, of course.



My site



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by rival on Tue Sep 27th at 7:57pm 2005

i know all about this yob culture, we get it in scotland too!

but it is true that this yob culture is a british one. i wonder why? i heard on the news the other night scotland was voted the most violent place in the wester world. i dont know if i quite believe that though




Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
&quot;I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!&quot;



Quote
 Re: Mandatory School Uniforms
Posted by Nickelplate on Tue Sep 27th at 11:12pm 2005

You know, I've heard of this "yob culture" and quite frankly it seems a lot like american street culture in general. You know, the skaters smoking doobs and spray-painting buildings, the latino gang sniffing paint fumes from a pepsi can, the black gangs shooting and grafitti-ing, everyone doing the drugs and stealing cars, mugging ppl, nicking purses and all other various and sundry kinds of debauchery. It seems like these Chavs have a different name here in the US: Teenagers. (who's parents left them at home.)

Anyway, I heard that some places in britain banned certain kinds of clothes (e.g. hoodies) because it was a sign of yob-ness.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com




« previous page 12
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply