“Last night, the school board voted on student uniforms. Teacher uniforms are still being debated.
BUT….the law says that uniforms must be provided if students are eligible for free lunch. (assistance must be provided to those eligible for reduced lunch) Our school has over 70 % free and reduced lunch students. The solution? Change the wording to delete the word uniform. Our new ‘dress code’ says only black and khaki pants and shirts with collars or turtlenecks with no logo, design, slogan or other decoration are allowed. Because they aren’t calling it a uniform, they don’t have to provide anything.
In addition, the students are allowed to wear any shoes they choose. Pink stilettos, stripper boots, sandals…all allowed. In the area where I work/ live, shoes are a much more important symbol of status than any other item of clothing. They will not be required to tuck in their shirts, which should ensure that they won’t have to stop sagging.”
I read this on Mad Hot Math, and thought it raises some interesting questions. First of all, I feel like changing the word uniform to dress code was very manipulative. In a school where 70% of the students have free and reduced lunch, these families are obviously not in a position where they can go out and buy a weeks’ worth of new clothes for their child. My second thought on this was that if the students are allowed to wear whatever shoes they please to maintain their social status, and their pants are still allowed to sag as much as they please, what problem is the uniform, excuse me, dress code really correcting?
{ 2 } Comments