In 2009, the District's Parental Advisory Committee, which is chaired by BOE Member Martha Ross, made the decision to bring school uniforms to District 150.
Phase I of the uniform roll out started with primary schools and middle schools. Now that it is time to role out Phase II, the uniform code for high schools, the decision to do so is being met with strong opposition from parents at Richwoods, who believe that they have so few infractions with dress code violations that they should be exempt.
On the other hand, you have a representative from the Manual High School area who says that they have so many dress code infractions that a dress code is imperative.
Many say we already have a dress code - just enforce it. However, when you are in a school like a Manual where there are so many dress code violations, enforcing the dress code would be very time consuming.
After much discussion among the PAC and no conclusive decision, Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Parker met with groups of local high schoolers to review the current dress code and the development of a standard mode of dress (SMOD) vs. the institution of the school uniform.
In what appears to be an effort not to offend, the PAC is leaning towards no uniforms this year - but holding out the threat of uniforms next year if the new SMOD is not followed.
As of right now, the uniform code is not being equally enforced in the primary/middle schools. There is one middle school Principal in particular who feels that their school does not have to adhere to the uniform code. In the high schools, they all have a dress code, however, it is not consistent from school to school.
My thoughts are that if the PAC rolled out Phase I and said that Phase II would follow, why are they now backing off of instituting uniforms in high schools? When you consider that children in primary and middle school were not the ones who had the problems with thongs, too tight clothes, cleavage and the general showing of underwear, why were they forced to wear uniforms? Should the PAC now consider rolling back requiring primary and middle school children wear uniforms?
If principals didn't enforce the dress code before, what difference will it make to them about the new SMOD? If there is a school with a large number of SMOD violations, should they be forced to wear uniforms when the rest of the District is not?
By the way, aren't there a lot of more important things that parents are concerned about and/or should be concerned about, other than meeting month after month to discuss school uniforms?
The parents are at the table, BOE members are at the table, sounds like a wonderful opportunity to discuss increasing parental involvement, parent/teacher teamwork, increasing communication with parents, etc...
Phase I of the uniform roll out started with primary schools and middle schools. Now that it is time to role out Phase II, the uniform code for high schools, the decision to do so is being met with strong opposition from parents at Richwoods, who believe that they have so few infractions with dress code violations that they should be exempt.
On the other hand, you have a representative from the Manual High School area who says that they have so many dress code infractions that a dress code is imperative.
Many say we already have a dress code - just enforce it. However, when you are in a school like a Manual where there are so many dress code violations, enforcing the dress code would be very time consuming.
After much discussion among the PAC and no conclusive decision, Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Parker met with groups of local high schoolers to review the current dress code and the development of a standard mode of dress (SMOD) vs. the institution of the school uniform.
In what appears to be an effort not to offend, the PAC is leaning towards no uniforms this year - but holding out the threat of uniforms next year if the new SMOD is not followed.
As of right now, the uniform code is not being equally enforced in the primary/middle schools. There is one middle school Principal in particular who feels that their school does not have to adhere to the uniform code. In the high schools, they all have a dress code, however, it is not consistent from school to school.
My thoughts are that if the PAC rolled out Phase I and said that Phase II would follow, why are they now backing off of instituting uniforms in high schools? When you consider that children in primary and middle school were not the ones who had the problems with thongs, too tight clothes, cleavage and the general showing of underwear, why were they forced to wear uniforms? Should the PAC now consider rolling back requiring primary and middle school children wear uniforms?
If principals didn't enforce the dress code before, what difference will it make to them about the new SMOD? If there is a school with a large number of SMOD violations, should they be forced to wear uniforms when the rest of the District is not?
By the way, aren't there a lot of more important things that parents are concerned about and/or should be concerned about, other than meeting month after month to discuss school uniforms?
The parents are at the table, BOE members are at the table, sounds like a wonderful opportunity to discuss increasing parental involvement, parent/teacher teamwork, increasing communication with parents, etc...
10 comments:
Uniforms work fine at Peoria Notre Dame. So... Richwoods should just suck it up and get dressed. It makes it so much easier for the parents.
I am told that the Richwoods parents feel that the uniforms make the school district look poor; as if the administration has given up the students. The thought is of course you wear uniforms in private schools, but only "bad" public schools wear uniforms.
I think I spit out my drink Emerge. Ummmm yes, RCHS Parents, the majority of Dist 150 is poor..including the District itself. And?
Emerge, what makes you believe that District 150 central administrators and board members are willing to back principals who want to see that students follow the dress code? Like all other violations, dress code violations ultimately should lead to suspensions and expulsions--Martha Ross opposes both. What do you think would be the appropriate consequences for not following the dress code? Should kids be sent home--and should the absence be considered unexcused? Should the school provide clothes for the offending students? Personally, I grew tired of writing up dress code violations because I knew there were absolutely no consequences for dress code violations. Our principal, assistant principal, and deans would just send the offenders back to class. For instance, I believe there is a rule against hooded sweatshirts. Students would put them over their heads--essentially covering their faces and would refuse to take them off. I would send them to the dean. The deans would say that the student promised not to wear the hood. Guess what, the student returned and put on the hood. Cleavage--same thing--girls were just told to sit up straight, not bend over, etc. When these rumors start about Richwoods parents or any parents being opposed to the policy, I always want to know how many parents, etc. Of course, it's true that only "bad" and or "poor" public schools wear uniforms. Whenever the board discusses uniforms, those are the two arguments that are always used. (1) that studies show that students behave better if they wear uniforms (2) that uniforms keep poor kids from feeling inferior to rich kid, etc. What other arguments are there? Notre Dame and private schools wear classier uniforms. They have special uniforms with logs on them, etc., to make the students feel special. They don't wear shirts and bottoms that can be purchased at Penney's or Wal-Mart. I believe that the fight at the high school level would be endless. First, high school students (who don't have wealthy parents) often work to buy their own clothes. They aren't going to be willing to spend their hard-earned money on uniforms. They don't have enough money to buy two sets of clothes--one for school and for outside of school. I am not totally opposed to uniforms, but I think that now (with the closing of Woodruff) is the right time. There are going to be so many issues connected to this major change that I don't see adding another issue to the mix will be helpful at any of the three high schools.
I never did check this rumor out. But I was told that Valeska Hinton preschoolers don't have to wear uniforms. All other STAR program preschoolers have to wear the uniforms. I really didn't get why these children had to wear uniforms. Further, I didn't understand why Valeska was exempt, if it was.
"They have special uniforms with logs on them, etc., to make the students feel special."
No they don't.
"They don't wear shirts and bottoms that can be purchased at Penney's or Wal-Mart."
Yes they do.
Just looked at the PND website again. Guess they now do require a 'logo' on the shirts. That's new. Probably tick off a few parents that I know who may have kids go there next year.
I had heard there were some parent's pushing for an 'exclusive' supplier of uniforms. Guess they may have prevailed. They talked about that at St. Marks and it was soundly rejected. The parents were very cost sensitive. The exclusive supplier would not have been a cheaper route.
How do Lindbergh School parents feel about uniforms?
Mahkno, I had a funny feeling things may have changed at PND since Spaulding and Academy of Our Lady Days. Also, the kids at Peoria Academy wear uniforms that are very ordinary--I don't know if they buy from a special company and/or if they have a logo. I just think District 150 is on shaky ground at the high school level. Uniforms require a high degree of parental "involvement." The parents of primary and some middle school kids buy the uniforms, keep them laundered, etc. I'm not sure anyone can expect the same of most parents of high school students.
I can't believe this where we are going with public education... why not orange jumpsuits? And we could shave their heads and cut off their sideburns like we in the 1960s and 70s. (At Richwoods)
School is already seen as a prison sentence for many.
Post a Comment