Mandatory School Uniforms

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.

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.

[color=white]And[/color] 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

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>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.</DIV></DIV>

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?

</DIV></DIV>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.

Nickelplate said:
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.

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. "

[color=white]Read the article here http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=290693
[/color]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

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle> </DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext> over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations </DIV></DIV>

</DIV></DIV>

Crono said:
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

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. :smile:

---

My site

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Loco</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>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.</DIV></DIV>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".

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>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</DIV></DIV>
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. :smile:

</DIV></DIV>

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.
"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!"

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. :smile: 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

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

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.
"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!"

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.) :rolleyes:

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

Trust me, the "yob culture" here is worse. We're talking about a lot of (and I mean a lot of)
people between 15 and 25 going out, getting plastered, gathering in
groups, and screaming abuse at anyone and everyone who goes past,
including the police. It's not just the vaguely subtle (as in they try
not to get caught) stuff you've described, it's just plain up front
visciousness (for want of a better word).

They banned hoodies in one shopping centre, because what with the yob
culture and all that a lot of teenagers were hanging around wearing
hoodies with the hood up and generally looking aggressive, which was
allegedly quite intimidating for the shoppers. There's a bit of a
debate about it, but those associated with the "yob culture" can be
very intimidating for those living in the local area.

There have been laws introduced to try and combat this (drinking laws
for example, coming into effect in November), although a lot of these
yobs use fake identity cards to get hold of alcohol anyway, so it won't
make too much difference.

---

My site

Drinking laws? what kind? I'm interested.

---

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

Come to germany;

Beer for cheap and tasty!

Oh my!

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

Drinking laws? what kind? I'm interested.

They've tried to slightly toughen-up drinking laws so that you can only consume alcohol if you're under eighteen if:

1) You are in a private dwelling

OR

2) You are having a formal sit down meal with the drink

There has to be someone eighteen or over in both cases.

The reason I know about this is because it massively affects the sixth
form bar at school, and means we will regularly get pupils going into
town in order to get drunk rather than staying on site. This has a very
negative affect on the relationship between the school and the town
(boarding school, btw).

This is a contrast of course, with the proposed laws that we have pubs
which can open 24-hours a day, which was promoted by sending text
messages to voters which read "Couldn't give a XXXX for closing times?
Vote Labour for extended hours". Whichever way you read it, there is no
denying that extending closing hours will cause problems.

---

My site

Crapceeper said:
Come to germany;
Beer for cheap and tasty!

Oh my!

Ich wohne in ihre Haus! (Umsonst)

---

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

Kein Problem. F?r ein Paar Wochen ist das durchaus machbar.

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

Schoen!

---

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

Well;

give a PM or some kind-o-message to me to let me know when and if you wanna step by.

And now I will disappear and grant this topics' original way.

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

Ich verstehe German nicht

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

gut.

I think it's "ich nicht deutsch vestehe" maybe not though, Crappy's is our native Deutschlander

---

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