args

Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

Schools need to acquire money to survive. If they don't, they are subject to cutting teachers, classes, and programs. Yes, the intention of a school is to teach students, but it needs money to do so. If the schools provide the means for the uniforms, they can make a profit enough that could be considerable enough to save a teacher or class. Yes, kids could reuse their regular outfits, but trends for students change basically over night. Parents would have to continue buying new brands of shirts, shoes and pants more frequently than they would have to purchase uniforms. A little goes a long way. The public schools in America are greatly suffering, and money at all could help them prosper a bit more. Some students may protest, yes, but tat can not be said for every student. One boy wearing a skirt to school to protest uniforms isn't enough to suggest students as a whole hate the idea of school uniforms. I'm sure students who are picked on for their clothing wouldn't mind uniforms, for they would be wearing the same clothing as the people who pick on them. One researchers findings isn't enough to rule out every single case of school uniforms. "In Reno, Nevada, school uniforms have made the life of one autistic student much easier while helping him advance in his cognitive development at school. With the help of intensive therapy and the CLS program at Roy Gomm, he now can do most things a typical developing student can do, including putting on his school uniform." Saying one researchers findings completely rules out any chance of the opposite is ludicrous. Ask a white racist male how they feel about other races, is their answer enough to rule out a another white male's opinion? Until Brunsma studies every single school to use school uniforms, there is no saying that any claims made otherwise are ruled out. In a survey conducted at Roy Gumm 80% of parents liked the school uniform requirements. One can express themselves while their young through other avenues such as the music they listen to, the films and television programs they watch, their hair, and jewlery. Having students wear uniforms doesn't completely strip them of individuality. In the same respect, adults can do the same. Actually, students can wear offensive clothing, whether depicting an offensive act, or even it being too revealing. THeir clothing can be just as offensive as words can be. At Warren Hills Regional High School one student wore a shirt with the offensive term "redneck" on it, while another wore a shirt with the confederate flag. The students could've been targeting a particular student with their choice of attire - there's no way to know. Clothing can caused just as many problems as words can. http://www.mynews4.com... http://www.cir-usa.org...

Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

The debate of whether public schools should require uniforms is forever an ongoing, and often a touchy subject. However, I feel it is vital that public school students be required to wear a school uniform. Especially in this economy, it's important that money be saved wherever and whenever for families struggling to make ends meet. Requiring students to wear uniforms would, in the long run, save parents or guardians a boat load of money. Rather than having to buy their children a plethora of expensive clothing, the parents would simply purchase a few uniforms that the children would wear five days out of the week. The amount of "regular" clothes they would be forced to purchase would significantly decrease, allowing for parents to use that money elsewhere. Children often desire expensive shoes, shirts, and pants (not to mention accessories). Because their children do indeed need clothing to wear to school, parents are often roped into buying their children over priced clothing. Children want to fit in with the latest craze, often prompting parents to have to shell out thousands on Uggs, Abercrombie and Fitch, and Juicy Couture – for example – when that is just not necessary. If uniforms were enforced in public schools, children wouldn't be as fascinated with the latest crazes, for all of the students would be wearing the same things anyway. Money would also be saved in the sense that children and students could get multiple years out of the uniforms. For example, I'm a college freshman and still often wear some articles of clothing I wore in the seventh grade. After puberty, most students won't do much growing and could even get most of their high school careers out of the uniforms. Even at the least, students could get two years out of the uniforms, which would cause parents not to have to keep spending money year after year on clothing because the children's clothing from the last year went out of style. Also to be considered is that if the uniforms don't change for multiple years, parents could save the uniforms and give them to younger siblings of the same gender to wear, which would help them save even more money! The uniforms could also be considered lucrative for the public schools themselves for they can make a small profit from the purchasing of the uniforms and use that money to improve things around the school. Requirng public school students to wear school uniforms is a simple way for public schools to make money, as we all know that is extremely dire in this world today. Requring public school students to wear school uniforms proves to be quite lucrative for all of those involved. Businesses that make school uniforms would prosper as well, which would help in job creation. Those companies and businesses that students currently wear wouldn't suffer too much damage either, for they often make clothing for all ages, and a small decrease shouldn't hurt much.

uniforms for kids

school uniforms would be better for schools because a lot of kids dress inappropriate these days.

Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

I concede that it's not the responsibility of the school to clothes its students. However, requiring uniforms would help both parents and the school out, making it a win-win for everyone. Unfortunately, the money schools receive is not enough. Schools are constantly being faced with budgets cuts and having to cut programs and teachers. While their funds may be at an all time high, it's still not enough to cover each and every expense they are faced with. In New Jersey particularly, budget cuts have left schools unable a thorough and efficient education for its students. since when does one size fit all? I'm sure uniforms would be provided in all shapes to accommodate every kind of student. Just because a few students can't get the right clothes or are bullied does not mean the government should make everyone that goes to a public school wear the same thing. While this could be considered true, it's the government's responsibility to protect the well being of its people. When children's lives are threatened (whether by another person or by themselves) it's imperative to take every measure possible to protect them. If the uniforms in place save even just one bullied student's life, I would consider it a success. In this country especially, majority rules. It's simply the type of voting system in place. 80% vs 20% is an overwhelming majority rule. I concede that an eight year study would hold accurate results, but the results may not be the same for every public school afflicted. Children can find other ways to express themselves besides their clothing, such as hair, activities, jewlery, music, etc. Their identities aren't being stripped. To conclude: Public schools requiring school uniforms is a good idea, and should be practiced. Uniforms can help save parents money in the long run, for they wouldn't have to keep buying their children new, trendy clothes as often as they would if regular outfits were allowed. If the style of uniforms were to stay stagnant, parents could reuse them for their other children. Students would also be able to reuse their uniforms for upwards of three-fours years. School uniforms would help appease the epidemic of bullying. Children would all be wearing the same thing and would no longer be teased for their outfits and what they can't afford to buy. Uniforms would ease some distractions in classes (i.e., outfits revealing too much, offensive slogans) and put the focus on learning, rather than fashion. Uniforms would prepare students for the workplace where there will be strict codes on what they will be able to wear (sort of like uniforms in their own right) All in all, uniforms would be beneficiary to parents, students, and public schools. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your concluding arguments. http://www.nj.com...

schools should not have uniforms

Schools should not have uniforms because it uniforms don't allow freedom of expression. It would also cost parents a lot of money. they would have to buy new uniforms ever time there kids grow out of them. which could add up depending on how fast your kid grows and how many kids you have. Second of all. it will only cause the school more problems. kids will more then likely disobey the rules to wearing the uniforms. such as not wearing the uniforms at all. Everyone has the right to the freedom of expression.

Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools

"School uniforms indeed encourage different ways of expression--but this nevertheless clashes against the uniform's goal at unifying everyone." Kids wearing the same styles or colors of certain articles of clothing, such as shirts, pants, socks, ties, ect., unifies them. Wearingg different articles at different times separates them. Take these pictures for example: These two girls are unified by wearing the same colors, but show self expression. The girl on the left is wearing a navy and white cross-tie, white blouse, and navy skirt. The girl on the right is wearing a white long sleeved shirt with a collar, underneath a navy dresss. All of these uniforms look diverse, yet would work for a school whose colors are red and yellow. No two uniforms match, yet it is evident that they would all be from the same school. Also, this argument depends on your definition of unify. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com... , unify means "to cause (people or things) to be joined or brought together". An example of this is "two very different people unified by a common belief". Uniforms can unify people by using the same colors or styles, while self-expression allows variation within these boundaries. You can unify a group of people without forcing them to give up their individuality. Boy Scouts wear the same uniform, but due to their different badges, patches, pins, and beads, they are allowed to show their personal achievements and preferences. Letterman jackets also allow people in schools to be unified while showing personal achievements. http://www.wisegeek.org... explains what Letterman jackets are and how kids personalize it, while keeping the school pride. "My opponent concedes that uniforms does not necessarily halt bullying. Even experts say that uniforms won't stop bullying." I have already addressed this. See previous arguments. "Changing this policy would require meetings, discussing, agreement, and lots of money to buy all the uniforms from the school. While private schools may earn money, most public schools are free. Therefore there not only remains the problem of time and process needed to change this no-uniform policy, public schools would have problem garnering up enough money for buying uniforms every year for new students in the school." I do agree that changing this policy would require all of these things- initially. After initial cost, and time, is settled, uniforms are greatly inexpensive and durable. It is not the school's responsibility to provide uniforms, but to provide a path to obtaining school approved uniforms through resources such as magazines, websites, and catalogs. If parents could not provide uniforms to start with, then schools could provide interest-free loans to help offset the cost. Unless public schools wanted to completely take the whole burden of the cost, which they could do through fundraisers, they would not need to collect money for uniforms. Besides that, uniforms and their costs are as diverse as the school districts they will be representing. In other words, each school district will have to decide for themselves the economic situation of their student body and decide how costly a uniform can be to represent them. Each school would have to choose a uniform that falls within the student body's economic range. Through the implementation of small uniform swap stores, parents wouldn't need to "buy uniforms every year for new students in the school". The uniforms would be turned in and exchanged for uniforms of a different size or for cash. "Opponent contradicts himself. Uniforms do not change the students' physique. They will still be worried about looking fat. Uniforms do not solve the problem my opponent proposes." Uniforms will not solve the problem of looking fat. Uniforms, will however, solve the problem of kids becoming obsessed over whether or not they have a certain style of clothing. By looking the same, I in no way meant that they would become identical in stature or weight. My opponent twisted my argument of not having to worry about not looking good in name-brand clothes. Allowing free-dress also is not the solution to kids being self-conscious about how they look. Allowing kids to dress however they please will not only put down the kids who can't afford designer clothing, but will also make the kids who don't look good in clothing made for smaller kids self-conscious. "In addition, poor people will be unable to afford the uniforms at once." I refuted that in my argument about interest-free loans and swap stores. "Ah, see? School uniforms are so restricting even my opponent thinks that they shouldn't be required all the time." This was not the argument that we were having. My opponent claimed in the second round that "Not all work requires uniforms. For those that don't require uniforms, using uniforms will decrease the students' abilities to chose their clothing wisely." Due to this argument, I conceded that to have practice choosing clothing wisely, free dress days once monthly would be sufficient, in addition to weekends. I do not believe that uniforms are restricting whatsoever, but in order to gain favor with children that are opposed to uniforms, I see the point in opening up dress once monthly. "My opponent gives us two statistic websites, yet do not tell us what they show and why they are credible." I do apologize for giving statistic sites and not explaining what they mean. I will now explain them. http://www.statisticbrain.com... shows how many percent of parents marked "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" on the following questions survey asked the Survey was taken after the implementation of uniforms. The questions are stated below. Survey Question Parents Teachers Policy has hindered self expression and creativity 34 % 5 % Policy has hindered individual student’s personal liberty 36 % 0 % Has promoted a sense of security 41 % 86 % Has increased school pride and has created a sense of community 42 % 80 % The school uniform has been financially beneficial for my household 49 % 86 % Has addressed the peer pressure issue of "fitting in" by wearing specific brands 47 % 90 % Has promoted positive student behavior 37 % 95 % Policy has minimized disruption and distractions 38 % 81 % Has eliminated competition among students 36 % 52 % School uniforms have improved the learning environment 35 % 81 % The Board should extend the school uniform policy indefinitely 42 % 81 % http://kids.lovetoknow.com... gives specific advantages in why uniforms are beneficial in the areas of academia, behavior, and emotion. It also shows the financial effects being primarily the same. Back to you.