Should school uniforms be abolished ?

TheDriver

FoxT wrote: »

sensible school dress code, which would be just as easy to implement.

Unfortunately there are so many differing views on that and you would be shocked how parents will allow their children so unfortunately uniform allows responsible adults to govern dress exactly. Some parents have no problem with unsuitable clothing for school.

TheDriver

P.S. Jumpers with a crest don't have to be expensive and can last ages, our kids can get 2-3 years out of ours and costs €50, we put a lot of effort into making sure it had a very high quality to give value for money. Our school pants is a special one but again isn't too expensive and can last a long time. School authorities can give great value with quality if they try. We also found having more than one shop stocking it ensured neither one took the mick. If there is a will, there is a way.
Any my school has people with money in it as well as those with none but that doesn't mean we can't give value for money, making life easier and kids actually prefer having a uniform as it makes things so much easier each and every day

DermotOH

5th Year Student here, When I was younger I hated having a uniform but now I see the point in it..

Most importantly it saves families allot of money as they don't have to go out regularly and purchase new clothes for their kids

Neyite

If I could implement a uniform it would be one that would be practical cheap and hard wearing:

White polo shirt
Black/Blue denim jeans
Pullover in whatever the school colour is, say wine/navy.
Stitch on crest.

Ban visible designer logos/branded items - eg GAP on everything else

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Neyite wrote: »

If I could implement a uniform it would be one that would be practical cheap and hard wearing:

White polo shirt
Black/Blue denim jeans
Pullover in whatever the school colour is, say wine/navy.
Stitch on crest.

Ban visible designer logos/branded items - eg GAP on everything else

I'd add football shirts to that list if I may.

Sir Niggalot

Abolish school uniforms -make them go naked!

Captain_Generic

Sir Niggalot wrote: »

Abolish school uniforms -make them go naked!

Err...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sir Niggalot wrote: »

Abolish school uniforms -make them go naked!

Much as you'd all like to see your streets awash with naked kids, I think it may be little bit unfair when the cold weather hits!

I have a vague recollection of seeing this actually happen in a progessive boarding school in the UK. will try and find soem evidence. (No pics or gtfo, though, you pervs)

Edit - here you go...

mars411

No way!!! €110 may seem expensive at the time but they would be wanting new clothes every couple of weeks to keep up with the latest trends.

And there would be endless washing and ironing to do!

Although in my secondary school the only coat you were allowed to wear was the navy school coat (€40) with the crest on it. One line of colour on your own coat and it would result in it being confiscated and you were lucky to get it back at the end of the week never mind the end of the day!! Colourful scarfs and hats were forbidden, they had to again be navy scarfs (€10) and hats (€8) with the crest on it.
Some boys and girls would come in with their local football clubs rain jacket which would be navy/black and have their clubs crest and a few coloured stripes and they would be sent to the office straight away to put it in the box there.
Yes the shirt,jumper,tie and trousers should be all the same colour, but the coat, scarfs and all the rest is total unecessary and expensive!!! You should be allowed to wear your own coat, etc.

Snowie

TheDriver wrote: »

imagine the burden on parents when Johnny comes home looking for expensive gear because everyone has a tommy shirt on. Fair enough you say no but then he is isolated and suddenly we are like USA.

School is for learning, growing up and being equal as much as possible. Weekends is for the fashion parades

You no your a frown up when you agree with this post...

hatrickpatrick

I'm not against uniforms per se, it's more that they have to be so formal. They're quite uncomfortable, especially when it's hot. By all means require a uniform, but why couldn't that be a t shirt and a pair of jeans or light linen trousers or something? The jumper's cool for when it's cold, it's having to wear a long sleeved shirt all the time which used to drive me nuts, and the heavy trousers.

charlemont

Iomib wrote: »

School uniforms are very expensive, Most secondary schools these days require crested jumpers that are €60 each, Skirts that are €50 each, This is huge burden on parents. Ireland must only have school uniforms because the uk have them, No country in mainland europe has school uniforms.

The kids wouldn't half be cold with no uniforms, It would be fair embarrassing for a teacher to be looking at a class full of naked children all day.

Twee.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not against uniforms per se, it's more that they have to be so formal. They're quite uncomfortable, especially when it's hot. By all means require a uniform, but why couldn't that be a t shirt and a pair of jeans or light linen trousers or something? The jumper's cool for when it's cold, it's having to wear a long sleeved shirt all the time which used to drive me nuts, and the heavy trousers.

We had a charity thing at school once where a few teachers were sponsored to wear the uniform for the day. Every single one of them said how warm and uncomfortable it was! The same teachers that would frown at only wearing the skirt and blouse on a hot day as it "wasn't full uniform" :rolleyes:

In terms of cost though, I had the same school skirt for the six years, and only got a new jumper when I switched from Junior to Senior (TY and up) and it was required to wear the Senior colour. The zip on the skirt broke, but sure we just sewed new one. Skirt and jumper were also "dry clean only". Not once did my uniform see the inside of a dry cleaners!

Azureus

I would have been the same as Twee. The one skirt did me, although with many a stitch put in when the zip went to crap. Still worked tho! Two jumpers-one junior, one senior. Sorted!
The only problem we had was that our school tried to specify a particular ''katie collar'' on our shirts-rounded that was hard to buy in chain shops. White blouse in pennys €4, official school 'katie collar' blouse €15. Feck. Right. Off. Was pulled up on it a few times but never bothered to mention it at home because I stright up told the teachers that it was pointless and we couldnt afford it. My mam got a phone call from the head saying I had to have the correct shirt on next weekor Id be suspended until I did. RIDICULOUS!

An appointment with the principal and my mother later the whole issue was dropped, but was still embarassing being contantly pulled up on it and the effort of threatening suspension etc for the sake of a flipping collar!!
Im all for uniforms, but 'school specific' stuff needs to be abolished. If you want a crest, give them out for generic jumpers and scrap all the pointless stuff.

analucija

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In two minds.

On the one hand, most ontinental schools have no uniforms, and there is no competition amongst kids. Is this just something people think will happen or is their any actual eveidence? I mean, do kids compete whne they hace days off or in the evenings? If so, how come it never happens in non-uniform schools?

On the other hand, **** it - the education system just turns them into programmed robots anyway, might as well go whole hog.

I don't think it ever mattered. I was not the worst dressed so I wouldn't notice it anyway. There was a bit of sneering towards kids that wore the same gear 5 days but it was mostly regarding hygiene and it would be the same if somebody wore the same uniform for 5 days. And while it was totally acceptable to wear Sepultura T Shirts, you wouldn't show up wearing Take That or whatever boy band was popular at the time T-shirt. In general there was little discrimination, maybe girls in torn fishnets, mini skirts and and Dr. Martins boots seemed a bit cooler but it didn't really matter. Guys just had to have cool hair and play in a band or some sport. Maybe jumpers that mum made were not the best idea.

foxyboxer

No, it would mean the end of certain genre of pornography. :eek:

lawhec

From my own memories of going to school here up north, you lot down south must have some sort of cartel going on. I remember at primary school in my first year there was no uniform rule but one was introduced when I went into P2, it was simple enough just navy trousers, navy jumper, sky blue shirt and black/white tie. In my last year in P7, they introduced the now very common sweatshirts with the school crest on them, and a sky blue polo shirt as an optional extra, but those like myself could wear our old uniform for one more year if we wanted to which sometimes came in useful.

On to secondary school again it was pretty plain, navy trousers, navy jumper with the school crest stitched on (the school didn't have jumpers with the crest already on them), white shirt and funnily enough the same type of tie I wore at primary school! A few years later they brought in a plain navy blazer which again had to have the crest stitched on, and eventually a different tie. But nothing flashy.

Eventually I went to the Omagh Tech (now South West College Omagh) with just plain civvies, not really an issue but maybe I was just lucky that other students I was with there were not fashionistas. And that we were perhaps at an age where we weren't so bothered about it all.

Of the schools in Omagh, Loreto Convent have a special fleece type blazer but its not compulsory. Omagh Academy do though and I don't think you can just stitch on a crest to a blazer. Other than that, all the post primaries have pretty plain uniform requirements. Schools do offer some of their own branded sports gear, but no one is mandated to buy it or wear it for PE etc. At secondary school a t-shirt and shorts or jogging bottoms were fine.

I don't know about down south, but up here parents who have low incomes can apply for a grant towards purchasing uniforms for their children. Oh, and I didn't realise southern students had to pay towards their school books until recently! Up here you were only charged if you failed to return it at the end of the year in one piece!

But as to the actual question, I would say no. Uniforms help in (a) helping students concentrate more on their academic work in the classroom rather than trying to eye up what others are wearing, (b) a developing sense of taking pride in your personal appearance and (c) instilling a sense of school community spirit and a sense of belonging among the pupils at large. The notion of uniforms suppressing ones individuality and creativity is nonsense I think, the student should be able to express themselves though their work and achievements in academic and vocational study areas not to mention sporting outlets and extra-curricular activities. To me that's a much more healthier outlet for children rather than trying to "impress" others by turning up for lessons dressed as Dappy from N-Dubz.

FinnLizzy

A lot (mot all) of the criticism of the 'no uniform' philosophy seems to be coming from people who went through the system entirely in uniform.

The idea of not wearing a uniform is a bit foreign and the complaints seem to be along the lines of: 'how will they choose what to wear in the morning?', 'what if the other kids make fun of the clothes?' and 'it's so much cheaper to have uniforms rather than buy a sh1t tonne of clothes?'.

My answer so such complaints would be, how do they function during all of the other non-school days? Do the parents dress them to go out with their friends?

Also, the fashion issue is not as important as people seem to think, and there's a school of thought that if you're aloud to wear what you like in school, then there will be more distractions. It's the same argument with co-ed schools. If boys and girls are aloud to integrate, will they be riding left right and center?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

FinnLizzy wrote: »

A lot (mot all) of the criticism of the 'no uniform' philosophy seems to be coming from people who went through the system entirely in uniform.

The idea of not wearing a uniform is a bit foreign and the complaints seem to be along the lines of: 'how will they choose what to wear in the morning?', 'what if the other kids make fun of the clothes?' and 'it's so much cheaper to have uniforms rather than buy a sh1t tonne of clothes?'.

My answer so such complaints would be, how do they function during all of the other non-school days? Do the parents dress them to go out with their friends?

Also, the fashion issue is not as important as people seem to think, and there's a school of thought that if you're aloud to wear what you like in school, then there will be more distractions. It's the same argument with co-ed schools. If boys and girls are aloud to integrate, will they be riding left right and center?

Seems to be down to a fear of what might happen rather than what actually goes on.

Is anyone here in favour of uniforms but for more verifyable reasons?

cobear

After 14 years of wearing a uniform at school, I have to say that they are the only way to go. Yes they are dear to buy initially and I agree with other posters that cheaper versions should be made available and schools should provide much more leeway in terms of crests etc. They are also often too hot in summer and too cold in winter but it's unbelievable the amount of stress they save you - not having to decided what to wear every morning. We had a few non uniform days in my school and there was definitely competitions and judging looks over what people wore, I couldn't see that going away because people were their everyday clothes to school!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cobear wrote: »

After 14 years of wearing a uniform at school, I have to say that they are the only way to go. Yes they are dear to buy initially and I agree with other posters that cheaper versions should be made available and schools should provide much more leeway in terms of crests etc. They are also often too hot in summer and too cold in winter but it's unbelievable the amount of stress they save you - not having to decided what to wear every morning. We had a few non uniform days in my school and there was definitely competitions and judging looks over what people wore, I couldn't see that going away because people were their everyday clothes to school!

You agree wit hschool uniforms, but then spend most of your post listing the problems?

Why was their compeition at your school / seems to be the exception (where did you go)?

How about a dress code inculding no brand names instead of a uniform?

flutterflye

How many of you who are blaming the parenting are actually parents yourselves?
Everyone is the perfect parent until they actually become a parent.

jester77

Times were tough when I grew up. A lot of students had cheap jumpers with the crest cut out from an old jumper sewn in. No need to be spending silly amounts on these exclusive jumpers.

baltimore sun

They should go, teenagers and wee kids have enough stress in their lives without having to go thru it all lookin like dorks.......

that whole argument of "but if there's no uniforms then parents will ave to buy expensive clothes so their kids look cool" is utter bull****.
how come then that nations like Latvia, Estonia, Albania and Serbia aren't leading the way in fashion for teenagers.
Stupid stupid argument. Let kids wear what they want to school, nothing wrong with a bit of self expression and if you cant buy them expensive clothes then get them some cheap alternative on something called the internet, you may have heard of it, you're feckin using it.

RichieC

Iomib wrote: »

School uniforms are very expensive, Most secondary schools these days require crested jumpers that are €60 each, Skirts that are €50 each, This is huge burden on parents. Ireland must only have school uniforms because the uk have them, No country in mainland europe has school uniforms.

awful logic, it would cost more to keep a child in the latest fashions. now finish your homework.

analucija

FinnLizzy wrote: »

Also, the fashion issue is not as important as people seem to think, and there's a school of thought that if you're aloud to wear what you like in school, then there will be more distractions. It's the same argument with co-ed schools. If boys and girls are aloud to integrate, will they be riding left right and center?

I find uniforms a bit oppressive but I don't particularly object to them either. However saying that wearing whatever you want distracts you from school work is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody was overly worried what to wear. Most of us just wore jeans and some kind of top, jumper or hoodie. My school was co-ed which I believe also contributed to the fact that only a few girls wore make up. Almost nobody wanted to date or sleep with class mates, because you are stuck with them till the end of high school. We had two couples in the class over the years, one started dating two months before the end of high school. I'd say that another two or three people dated somebody else from the same school (out of 30 in the class). Most of us were pathetically single or dating people outside school.

Cost could be a valid argument in favor of uniforms but arguments about distractions or losing time trying to find something to wear is complete nonsense. However arguments against co-ed schools are just ridiculous and I actually can't find one good reason for anything but co-ed school.

FinnLizzy

analucija wrote: »

I find uniforms a bit oppressive but I don't particularly object to them either. However saying that wearing whatever you want distracts you from school work is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody was overly worried what to wear. Most of us just wore jeans and some kind of top, jumper or hoodie. My school was co-ed which I believe also contributed to the fact that only a few girls wore make up. Almost nobody wanted to date or sleep with class mates, because you are stuck with them till the end of high school. We had two couples in the class over the years, one started dating two months before the end of high school. I'd say that another two or three people dated somebody else from the same school (out of 30 in the class). Most of us were pathetically single or dating people outside school.

Cost could be a valid argument in favor of uniforms but arguments about distractions or losing time trying to find something to wear is complete nonsense. However arguments against co-ed schools are just ridiculous and I actually can't find one good reason for anything but co-ed school.

I went to an Educate Together primary school (co-ed, no uniforms) and a Catholic Boys secondary school. My appearance was made fun of more in the latter. If they can't discriminate based on clothes, they'll find anything! Like hair, shoes (before my school introduced a black shoe policy) and just the people you hang around with.

And the argument that the freedom to wear whatever you want in class is invalid, considering the amount of time wasted in my school on: uniform checks, detentions because of improper uniform and speeches about wearing uniform with pride.

lawhec

FinnLizzy wrote: »

Also, the fashion issue is not as important as people seem to think, and there's a school of thought that if you're aloud to wear what you like in school, then there will be more distractions.

It's a perfectly valid one in my opinion, teenage children especially can be influenced quite easily by vanity and peer pressure - a standard uniform takes some of this pressure off.

FinnLizzy wrote: »

It's the same argument with co-ed schools. If boys and girls are aloud to integrate, will they be riding left right and center?

I remember a report up north here a few years back that mentioned in terms of academic achievement that girls did better in single-sex schools while boys did better in co-ed's. It seems that girls in the classroom helps bring boys results up while boys in the classroom brought girls results down.

ChairmanCow

I wish everyone had to wear a uniform in adult life too. Loved the ease of just rolling out of bed knowing what to wear. Its far too much hassle these days having to look for decent clothes to buy that suit me then worrying what they look like and so on...

cowzerp

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

FFS, I used to have a penguin bar for lunch now and again at school and it never killed me.

Yeah but are you fat?!

Generic uniforms i say

analucija

lawhec wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid one in my opinion, teenage children especially can be influenced quite easily by vanity and peer pressure - a standard uniform takes some of this pressure off.

Gee, how do teenagers cope with the pressure during weekends and holidays when they don't wear uniforms.

lawhec wrote: »

I remember a report up north here a few years back that mentioned in terms of academic achievement that girls did better in single-sex schools while boys did better in co-ed's. It seems that girls in the classroom helps bring boys results up while boys in the classroom brought girls results down.

That is perfectly possible but academic achievement should not be the only thing that matters and secondly because boys mature latter they are handicapped in comparison to girls anyway. It makes sense to level the field a bit. In my experience there are still a lot more girls than boys getting into high point courses. I come from a country where almost all schools are co-ed and they were still thinking about positive discrimination to get more boys studying medicine.

christina_x

Iomib wrote: »

School uniforms are very expensive, Most secondary schools these days require crested jumpers that are €60 each, Skirts that are €50 each, This is huge burden on parents. Ireland must only have school uniforms because the uk have them, No country in mainland europe has school uniforms.

You think thats expensive? Try buying them new clothes at the same price every few weeks... thats expensive!
There's enough pressure without the whole "what will I wear??" shoite ontop of it!

tfitzgerald

I think that uniforms are cheaper in the long run than having to buy new outfits for school it would turn into an expensive fashion show especially for teenage girls Jesus at the moment I have two teenage girls in secondary school and there make up bill is frightening .

Shenshen

I think the argument that if there weren't any uniforms, parents would spend a fortune dressing their children is pushing it a bit... As far as I know, most children will wear the uniforms only to school. After school and at the weekends, they will still wear whatever fashion the parents pick or can afford.
So the uniforms are an additional cost, nothing else.

I grew up in a country where school uniforms are unknown, and guess what? That country and its children are doing just fine. there are very few cases indeed of parents filing for bankruptcy due to the cost of dressing their little gems up for school.
In fact, whenever I tell them what parents here have to fork out in order to buy additional clothes for their children to wear for school, the reactions are usually disbelieve and shock.

lawhec

analucija wrote: »

Gee, how do teenagers cope with the pressure during weekends and holidays when they don't wear uniforms.

Maybe these same teenagers don't hang around the same people when they are not in school, therefore would feel less pressured or burdened at weekends and holidays compared to school days where they pretty much have to sit alongside them?

analucija wrote: »

That is perfectly possible but academic achievement should not be the only thing that matters and secondly because boys mature latter they are handicapped in comparison to girls anyway. It makes sense to level the field a bit. In my experience there are still a lot more girls than boys getting into high point courses. I come from a country where almost all schools are co-ed and they were still thinking about positive discrimination to get more boys studying medicine.

None of what you say there explains why boys seem to do better in co-ed schools compared to single sex schools while it's the reverse for girls because if boys are handicapped by maturing later, does it really matter if they are being taught in a single sex or co-ed school?

Shenshen

lawhec wrote: »

None of what you say there explains why boys seem to do better in co-ed schools compared to single sex schools while it's the reverse for girls because if boys are handicapped by maturing later, does it really matter if they are being taught in a single sex or co-ed school?

Maybe it's just a matter of goalposts?
In co-ed schools, expectations would be raised due to the standard set by the girls, which would encourage the boys to perform better than in single sex schools?

Just a thought, really, I haven't spent much time thinking about it.
But from experience I have to say that boys tend to be competitive, whereas girls are networking.
So mixed schools would work as encouragement for boys, they would reduce the number of available networkers for girls.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lawhec wrote: »

Maybe these same teenagers don't hang around the same people when they are not in school, therefore would feel less pressured or burdened at weekends and holidays compared to school days where they pretty much have to sit alongside them?

I can assure you they socialise and mix a lot more at the weekends and it still doesn't explain why kids in other non-uniformed countires are more open-minded.

Seriously, the peer-pressure excuse is a non-starter for so many reasons expresse in this thread.

None of what you say there explains why boys seem to do better in co-ed schools compared to single sex schools while it's the reverse for girls because if boys are handicapped by maturing later, does it really matter if they are being taught in a single sex or co-ed school?

Boys tend to be more creative and expressive, whereas girls are more intellectual and rational. It's just a case of the education system suiting girls more than boys. Nothing to do with single-sex v mixed.

analucija

lawhec wrote: »

None of what you say there explains why boys seem to do better in co-ed schools compared to single sex schools while it's the reverse for girls because if boys are handicapped by maturing later, does it really matter if they are being taught in a single sex or co-ed school?

If you think that separating one gender from another so they wouldn't harbor any sinful thoughts and god knows whet else is a good idea... It matters because both genders are used to converse with each other and hang out. My group of friends consisted of 4 girls and 4 boys and I probably got on better with boys (never dated one). I do think that some practices that are (were) significantly influenced by catholic church do more harm than good.

Now regarding the point above... My high school was 50/50, my brother was going to a school that was predominately but not exclusively male and I have some friends who went to predominately female school. My school was a bit more academically demanding but in comparison to other schools girls were in general a lot less worried about their appearance and there was less (almost no) violence in comparison to my brothers school. And thank god no farting jokes. I think that discipline in classroom was better which helped boys but there will be always a bit of gender bias, no matter what kind of a school it is. Comparing the schools, the quality of teaching and entry selection were a lot more significant for the results than gender balance.

lawhec

Shenshen wrote: »

Maybe it's just a matter of goalposts?
In co-ed schools, expectations would be raised due to the standard set by the girls, which would encourage the boys to perform better than in single sex schools?

I think there's something to that - the girls "encourage" the boys to pick up their standards but conversely the boys bring down the girls to some extent.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I can assure you they socialise and mix a lot more at the weekends and it still doesn't explain why kids in other non-uniformed countires are more open-minded.

I've worked at several schools over the last few years and there is a common theme locally here of students having strong cross-school friendships in different fields. Also what evidence do you have of countries which don't have a prevalence of uniforms being "more open-minded"?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Seriously, the peer-pressure excuse is a non-starter for so many reasons expresse in this thread.

Anyone who dismisses peer pressure when it comes to debating the interests and lifestyles of children, especially teenagers, has their head buried in the ground.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Boys tend to be more creative and expressive, whereas girls are more intellectual and rational. It's just a case of the education system suiting girls more than boys. Nothing to do with single-sex v mixed.

Possibly. In the past the methods of teaching, access to subjects and ways of examination favoured boys more than girls. But I feel there is definitely an environmental cause when you are at an age where your hormones run riot, going by my own experiences of going from a co-ed school to an all boys school.

analucija wrote: »

If you think that separating one gender from another so they wouldn't harbor any sinful thoughts and god knows whet else is a good idea... It matters because both genders are used to converse with each other and hang out. My group of friends consisted of 4 girls and 4 boys and I probably got on better with boys (never dated one). I do think that some practices that are (were) significantly influenced by catholic church do more harm than good.

Now regarding the point above... My high school was 50/50, my brother was going to a school that was predominately but not exclusively male and I have some friends who went to predominately female school. My school was a bit more academically demanding but in comparison to other schools girls were in general a lot less worried about their appearance and there was less (almost no) violence in comparison to my brothers school. And thank god no farting jokes. I think that discipline in classroom was better which helped boys but there will be always a bit of gender bias, no matter what kind of a school it is. Comparing the schools, the quality of teaching and entry selection were a lot more significant for the results than gender balance.

Personally I am actually for co-ed schools more than single sex schools because I feel that co-ed schools allow students to socialise better during a significant part of their lives at that time. There are plenty of people who would disagree with me though - in recent years some single sex post-primary schools in Strabane and Dungannon have merged to become co-eds and in particular the latter had some quite hostile opposition to it but it still went ahead. From my own experience being in a co-ed secondary school was that the girls actually did better than the boys academically. When I went to an all boys school after my GCSE's the difference was a bit unnerving - the atmosphere was more demanding and less relaxed than my old school and there was much more of a macho culture involved. I just couldn't settle, it affected my studies and one night I just broke and said "screw it!"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lawhec wrote: »

I've worked at several schools over the last few years and there is a common theme locally here of students having strong cross-school friendships in different fields. Also what evidence do you have of countries which don't have a prevalence of uniforms being "more open-minded"?


Anyone who dismisses peer pressure when it comes to debating the interests and lifestyles of children, especially teenagers, has their head buried in the ground.


Possibly. In the past the methods of teaching, access to subjects and ways of examination favoured boys more than girls. But I feel there is definitely an environmental cause when you are at an age where your hormones run riot, going by my own experiences of going from a co-ed school to an all boys school.



Personally I am actually for co-ed schools more than single sex schools because I feel that co-ed schools allow students to socialise better during a significant part of their lives at that time. There are plenty of people who would disagree with me though - in recent years some single sex post-primary schools in Strabane and Dungannon have merged to become co-eds and in particular the latter had some quite hostile opposition to it but it still went ahead. From my own experience being in a co-ed secondary school was that the girls actually did better than the boys academically. When I went to an all boys school after my GCSE's the difference was a bit unnerving - the atmosphere was more demanding and less relaxed than my old school and there was much more of a macho culture involved. I just couldn't settle, it affected my studies and one night I just broke and said "screw it!"

1 - Have lived and worked with kids in France and Scnandanavia and lived in Germany. The kids in all those coutries ar more "childlike" and less fshion conscious that the irish kids *I put that down to less American culture influence as well, though)
"Open-minded" was perhaps the wrong word to use - I meant more tolerant and less likely to hone in on differences in clothing.

2 - I would agree, but that's not waht I said.

3 - Kind of agree, but the environment, in my opinion, should be kept as natural as possible (i.e. not artifical - you don't ge men-only or women-only offices) leads on to point 4 which I agree with. There is mroe to a school than just academic results.

Shenshen

lawhec wrote: »

Anyone who dismisses peer pressure when it comes to debating the interests and lifestyles of children, especially teenagers, has their head buried in the ground.

I most certainly wouldn't dismiss it, far from it.
But I do think that trying to take away all manifestations of it in an attempt to make everybody "just the same" is not going to address the problem, it'll just hide the problem from sight for outsiders.

The limited experience I've got with school uniforms leads me to believe that rather than doing away with the competition of who looks best, it actually makes it far more acute by focusing it on all aspects not covered by the uniform policies.
It suddenly becomes an issue of who's got the coolest stationary, school bags, coats, shoes, hairstyle, lunch money/lunch and in the most worrying cases it can even turn into a competition on who is the skinniest.

Using uniforms to try and take peer pressure away from children is a bit like a doctor treating a symptom without even looking for the cause.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Resi12

I would but I would also like to see the uniforms maybe done up a bit, the one's in England and America are much nicer. Actual blazers and everything.

People with their "BUT THE KIDS WANT DESIGNER" stuff make me laugh. You can say no and unless your child is attending private school then that is not an issue. Every kid wants designer something or other regardless.

When your 16, Juicy Couture is/was a big thing. Then you graduate and see it's tack. You do not have to buy designer clothes to look nice at all.

Mike 1972

hondasam wrote: »

NO because there would be to much competition on who was wearing what everyday.

Because teenagers/schoolkids NEVER meet up outside of school ?

TheDriver wrote: »

imagine the burden on parents when Johnny comes home looking for expensive gear because everyone has a tommy shirt on.

Imagine they might actually need a new word to add to their vocabulary.

cobear wrote: »

We had a few non uniform days in my school

Kinda rendering the whole thing rather pointless -no ?

cobear wrote: »

and there was definitely competitions and judging looks over what people wore

And you reckon this would still be the norm once the novelty wore off ?

Noo wrote: »

I finished 6th year wearing the same uniform I wore on my first day in 1st year, best damn investment my mother ever made!

You were the same height at the end of sixth year as the beginning of first year ???

Helix wrote: »

but would you not end up spending as much, if not more, on other clothes in place of the uniform over the course of the year if they didnt have the uniform?

Given that theyre going to be changing into "other clothes" as soon as they get home..........

cobear wrote: »

but it's unbelievable the amount of stress they save you - not having to decided what to wear every morning.

Stress -seriously ????

However did you cope after you left school given that you never had the opportunity to develop the life skills to cope with such an -er stressful routine ?

jester77 wrote: »

No need to be spending silly amounts on these exclusive jumpers.

The Problem: Kids under pressure to wear branded clothes -tis terrible Joe
The Solution: Make them wear OUR brand ?

lawhec wrote: »

Personally I am actually for co-ed schools more than single sex schools because I feel that co-ed schools allow students to socialise better during a significant part of their lives at that time. There are plenty of people who would disagree with me though - in recent years some single sex post-primary schools in Strabane and Dungannon have merged to become co-eds and in particular the latter had some quite hostile opposition to it but it still went ahead.

Most people have come to the realisation that segregating kids by skin colour is not a particularly good idea.

A few people are starting to come to the realisation that segregating kids by their (parents) religion is not much better.

Yet segregating kids by gender is still viewed as fine and dandy ?

Helix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

whereas girls are more intellectual and rational.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

starlit

Yes and No. While a student you'd wish they were but when you aren't you think they shouldn't. Its better to conform to just a uniform and same uniform to all students as well as being provided by a school approved school bag provided by the school as well, less competition who has the nice clothes/bag or eliminates competition and showing off!

Less pressure for parents. Though costly you get more wear out of a uniform than some clothes so best to stick with a bit of order, less likely to end up going to school with drastic dress sense at least everyone be wearing the same thing.
It's how they wear the uniform will vary the sense of style for students! They can be creative like that!

I be more in keeping that girls wear trousers than skirts though or at least get the option of wearing a trousers even if they are hideous but get to wear a trousers that be suitable enough for school but would still be considered stylish. The long skirts are awful though but then again a short skirt isn't classy in between is fine so think trousers be a better option all round! At least the kids wouldn't be wasting time in the morning getting ready - 'what I wear!?' unless the parents pick it out that's fine but if its them picking it out think the uniform is a better option! There is a time and place for certain clothes like.

The only time to choose own clothes is when kids are grown up and choose so for college/work at least be more sensible than teenagers! Fair enough teenagers choose what they want to wear outside school but there are certain clothes that aren't appropriate for certain ages that should only be applicable to adults.

Down with the nunnery clothes but up with the right to wear a uniform makes for a better classed and sophisticated educated society!

hondasam

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Because teenagers/schoolkids NEVER meet up outside of school ?

I'm sure they do but what has that got to do with wearing a uniform at school.

phasers

I think that crested uniforms should be made illegal tbh, but I think uniforms should be kept purely because it's a pain in the arse trying to choose an outfit first thing in the morning every morning, especially when you're a hormonal 14 year old having a fat day.

holystungun9

of course not. how will i know which kids are sexier?

Richard Dower

Children should be abolished.