Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones

First topic message reminder :

Thousands have signed a petition started by a US mother left furious when her teenage daughter was sent home from school for exposing her collarbones. Stacie Dunn’s daughter, Stephanie, was disciplined by the head teacher of Woodford County High School in Kentucky after wearing a top and cardigan that did not conform to rules. Mrs Dunn, who was called in to the school after her daughter was sent home on 13 August, criticised the establishment in a Facebook post for its “ridiculous” dress code.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-teenager-sent-home-for-violating-school-dress-code-by-showing-her-collarbones-10464020.html

Look at what she's wearing and how she is wearing it in The contrived sensible picture... she only needs to have been wearing the outside top a bit more loosely to be exposing all of shoulders and the inside top a bit lower to be exposing half her tits...

And that is probably exactly how she WAS wearing it when pulled up and sent home... And she probably had other warnings prior to this action too!


We have lefties moaning about some kids not being able to keep up with other kids with clothing brands/styles etc... then they moan when a school tries to enforce sensible dress code that is in The school rules!!!




We all agree a dress code is needed to prevent all sorts of inappropriate attire being worn into schools So why complain when a line has been drawn and someone is reprimanded for breeching it...!?

The story of the daughter here is very much irrelevant to the points being made about the school having such a poor code of practice which as stated is very much dated. Which again serves no purpose.
I am yet to hear a valid reason for such a code of practice placed on students?

Tommy Monk wrote:Look at what she's wearing and how she is wearing it in The contrived sensible picture... she only needs to have been wearing the outside top a bit more loosely to be exposing all of shoulders and the inside top a bit lower to be exposing half her tits...

And that is probably exactly how she WAS wearing it when pulled up and sent home... And she probably had other warnings prior to this action too!


We have lefties moaning about some kids not being able to keep up with other kids with clothing brands/styles etc... then they moan when a school tries to enforce sensible dress code that is in The school rules!!!

If pigs had wings, they would fly, tommy.  If the girl was dressed otherwise, the administrator would have taken a picture of her own.  This is the only pic we have, and the young woman looks fine to me.

Tommy Monk wrote:We all agree a dress code is needed to prevent all sorts of inappropriate attire being worn into schools So why complain when a line has been drawn and someone is reprimanded for breeching it...!?

I can't believe the code addresses "collarbones".  Kinda curious that the school doesn't publish the exact wording of the code, innit? I'm of the belief that the administrator made up this rule on the spot.  That, we don't need.

The girl would not have been pulled up if she WAS wearing the clothes as claimed...


And teachers taking pictures of school kids would also be inappropriate and highly questionable too... do you really think teachers should all be running about the schools with cameras trying to snap kids in compromising positions or exposing too much flesh!?




Just face it... if she looked like she did in her own claimed picture then she wouldn't have been pulled up... but as I said... she only had to be wearing the outside top more loosely off the shoulder and inside top a bit lower down to be exposing half her tits!!!

And that is probably exactly what she WAS doing... and also probably after numerous warnings too!!!


My old school had a 'no trainers' rule... strictly enforced... if you turned up in trainers on The odd occasion then you were immediately pulled up for it and sent to the head of dept to explain yourself and get a permission notice slip for the day... this was asked for throughout the day by any other teachers who saw you... if you didn't have the note then you were marched off to the head of dept to explain yourself etc...


The only excuse for trainers was that your shoes had fallen apart or got lost or chewed up by the dog etc... and Your parents were expected to get a new pair immediately... if you still had trainers on after a couple of days then you were sent home and parents were contacted!!!


Probably Also there was a note put on school record of this and that parents may have been neglecting child etc... multiple entries like this would probably Also mean social services were contacted etc... possible child protection action needed...


The rules are there for a reason.

Yes and as seen what benefit do any of these codes actually have?

Again nobody can seem to answer this.

What benefit does it have for students to cover their  "collarbones"?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, don't mean to be grumpy. I just don't like it when people assume, with no proof, that someone is lying, that's not a healthy approach to others in my opinion.

I think there's a fine balance between teaching your children to get along in society and teaching them to question authority when appropriate. The way you dress is a personal choice and a form of self expression, and it's nobody's business unless your clothing is demonstrably disruptive (and in some cases not even that's a good enough excuse. I have the right to wear a pro-Obama shirt regardless of whether someone else thinks he's the Antichrist

I've always thought that politics is largely about the question of what we want our society to become. So I see something like this and ask, do we want to raise a new generation of Americans that think it's acceptable for authorities to make unreasonable calls like this?

Also, I think the people who truly succeed are those who don't put their noses down and follow the rules -- companies want creative employees, and creativity doesn't come from always doing exactly as you're told.

I get what you're saying but haven't you noticed how spoilt and "me me me" teens are today? They have no fear or respect of authority and you know why?

Because of parents like this one!

"Oh well, it's the school,rules honey, we knew the rules when we picked the school. I think it's a bit silly but hey, those are the rules!"

What's wrong with that?
Choose your bloody battles fgs!

Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it? People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

Raggamuffin wrote:Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it?  People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

Yes but people in the main choose to take that career option. School you do not have an option for the child is it?

Again what I want to know is what benefits codes of dress are?
I can understand identification needed in some jobs, but for kids, I see no ethical or rational reason why they need to have such a code of dresss like having their "collarbones" covered.
I am yet to see someone argue that it has any benefit

Raggamuffin wrote:Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it?  People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

Exactly!

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it?  People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

Yes but people in the main choose to take that career option. School you do not have an option for the child is it?

Again what I want to know is what benefits codes of dress are?
I can understand identification needed in some jobs, but for kids, I see no ethical or rational reason why they need to have such a code of dresss like having their "collarbones" covered.
I am yet to see someone argue that it has any benefit

Why should they have an option at school to wear a uniform or not? It's better to have one because then it doesn't become a fashion show every day, with girls in particular competing to see who can wear the "trendiest" clothes. Even when the pupil is older and doesn't have to wear the uniform any more, there's usually a dress code of some kind.

I guess the idea of having their collarbones covered is to prevent girls wearing low-cut tops.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes but people in the main choose to take that career option. School you do not have an option for the child is it?

Again what I want to know is what benefits codes of dress are?
I can understand identification needed in some jobs, but for kids, I see no ethical or rational reason why they need to have such a code of dresss like having their "collarbones" covered.
I am yet to see someone argue that it has any benefit

Why should they have an option at school to wear a uniform or not? It's better to have one because then it doesn't become a fashion show every day, with girls in particular competing to see who can wear the "trendiest" clothes. Even when the pupil is older and doesn't have to wear the uniform any more, there's usually a dress code of some kind.

I guess the idea of having their collarbones covered is to prevent girls wearing low-cut tops.

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why should they have an option at school to wear a uniform or not? It's better to have one because then it doesn't become a fashion show every day, with girls in particular competing to see who can wear the "trendiest" clothes. Even when the pupil is older and doesn't have to wear the uniform any more, there's usually a dress code of some kind.

I guess the idea of having their collarbones covered is to prevent girls wearing low-cut tops.

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

I just gave you one of the benefits.

You don't know much about teenage girls do you?

I don't think that girls should look like tarts at school, no.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

I just gave you one of the benefits.

You don't know much about teenage girls do you?

I don't think that girls should look like tarts at school, no.

That is not a benefit, it is a perceived view you have where you are not reasoning how it benefits.

You then become emotive and claim I do not know teenage girls, even though I have raised 3.

So its you that has the problem here how you sterotype women and girls for what they wear based off you sexualizing them as seen by referring to a form of dress as being a "tart"

So the only benefit you are proposing here does nothing for the actual school children but to make you feel better about yourself in how people should dress accoding to your perceived views how people should dress.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just gave you one of the benefits.

You don't know much about teenage girls do you?

I don't think that girls should look like tarts at school, no.

That is not a benefit, it is a perceived view you have where you are not reasoning how it benefits.

You then become emotive and claim I do not know teenage girls, even though I have raised 3.

So its you that has the problem here how you sterotype women and girls for what they wear based off you sexualizing them as seen by referring to a form of dress as being a "tart"

So the only benefit you are proposing here does nothing for the actual school children but to make you feel better about yourself in how people should dress accoding to your perceived views how people should dress.

Of course it's a benefit. Picture the average teenage girl. If she can wear what she likes at school, first of all she's not going to wear the same thing two days in a row, so she needs loads of different clothes. Secondly, she's going to compete with other girls in order to be more "trendy" than them. School uniform prevents that, although of course girls will try to "adapt" them if they can get away with it.

Schools also like their pupils to represent the school by wearing a uniform. It makes the pupils more of a "team", and it identifies those who get into trouble on their way home from school.

I really don't get your objections, and I think you're trolling just to be controversial.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes but people in the main choose to take that career option. School you do not have an option for the child is it?

Again what I want to know is what benefits codes of dress are?
I can understand identification needed in some jobs, but for kids, I see no ethical or rational reason why they need to have such a code of dresss like having their "collarbones" covered.
I am yet to see someone argue that it has any benefit

Why should they have an option at school to wear a uniform or not? It's better to have one because then it doesn't become a fashion show every day, with girls in particular competing to see who can wear the "trendiest" clothes. Even when the pupil is older and doesn't have to wear the uniform any more, there's usually a dress code of some kind.

I guess the idea of having their collarbones covered is to prevent girls wearing low-cut tops.

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

A uniform makes everyone feel equal and the same - in other words, class and money doesn't apply
That's one benefit

Another benefit is boys not ogling girls and vice versa? So more work less play?

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

A uniform makes everyone feel equal and the same - in other words, class and money doesn't apply
That's one benefit

Another benefit is boys not ogling girls and vice versa? So more work less play?

I agree. Not all parents can afford lots of clothes for their children, or they might not be prepared to buy them lots of clothes. School uniform gets rid of that problem.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

That is not answering my question on what benefits they are.
So you view as to why a code is needed is based on your own perceived view on sexualizing women based on what they wear?
Like I say others imposing their views to "what they think" is right to wear.
Again what benefits does it bring?

A uniform makes everyone feel equal and the same - in other words, class and money doesn't apply
That's one benefit

Another benefit is boys not ogling girls and vice versa? So more work less play?

But that view is stemmed again from how others themselves view people Eddie.
So such a solution formed by a uniform in your first point does not actually really tackle the problem does it, as how have you combated these perceptions?

Your second again is again not dealing with the problem at its root core, boys themselves learning to respect them. That is the root cause here and by uniforming everyone in schools is not going to tackle that problem because they can and do dress different after school, where they meet each other.

So I see no benefit in your points Eddie, as they do not combat the actual problems

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just gave you one of the benefits.

You don't know much about teenage girls do you?

I don't think that girls should look like tarts at school, no.

That is not a benefit, it is a perceived view you have where you are not reasoning how it benefits.

You then become emotive and claim I do not know teenage girls, even though I have raised 3.

So its you that has the problem here how you sterotype women and girls for what they wear based off you sexualizing them as seen by referring to a form of dress as being a "tart"

So the only benefit you are proposing here does nothing for the actual school children but to make you feel better about yourself in how people should dress accoding to your perceived views how people should dress.

Of course it's a benefit. Picture the average teenage girl. If she can wear what she likes at school, first of all she's not going to wear the same thing two days in a row, so she needs loads of different clothes. Secondly, she's going to compete with other girls in order to be more "trendy" than them. School uniform prevents that, although of course girls will try to "adapt" them if they can get away with it.

Schools also like their pupils to represent the school by wearing a uniform. It makes the pupils more of a "team", and it identifies those who get into trouble on their way home from school.

I really don't get your objections, and I think you're trolling just to be controversial.

All those reasons are valid reasons

Having worked in education and been a school governor, this topic was always discussed due to some parents complaining about uniform.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it's a benefit. Picture the average teenage girl. If she can wear what she likes at school, first of all she's not going to wear the same thing two days in a row, so she needs loads of different clothes. Secondly, she's going to compete with other girls in order to be more "trendy" than them. School uniform prevents that, although of course girls will try to "adapt" them if they can get away with it.

Schools also like their pupils to represent the school by wearing a uniform. It makes the pupils more of a "team", and it identifies those who get into trouble on their way home from school.

I really don't get your objections, and I think you're trolling just to be controversial.

All those reasons are valid reasons

Having worked in education and been a school governor, this topic was always discussed due to some parents complaining about uniform.

Sorry Eddie but you are not grasping my point.
How is dressing people equal not tackling the problem of people having poor perceptions on how people dress. It means you are using a temp solution to a problem, which will not teach children how to respect how others dress.
Again Eddie, my view is top tackle problems at their root cause, which uniforms do nothing to solve those problems

Well let's be honest Didge, you've had teens I take it?
They're all about themselves and their friends and their music and their own little worlds.
Teachers have a hard enough job, just getting them to focus (not all of them obviously) so trying to attempt to them start teaching them about not judging others etc is just a big fat waste of their time.
By the time they reach sixth form or college, this judgemental behaviour normally dies down anyway.

In a perfect world, it would be your way as you've described - and I agree with you in principle, after all, it's what I try and teach my teen (being a pretty nice boy he's not so judging of others anyway thank God)


Also a uniform is much much easier on a parent's financial pocket too!

I think a lot of girls are pleased to have a uniform - it avoids the issues I mentioned earlier. They have enough to think about without having to think what to wear every day.

eddie wrote:Well let's be honest Didge, you've had teens I take it?
They're all about themselves and their friends and their music and their own little worlds.
Teachers have a hard enough job, just getting them to focus (not all of them obviously) so trying to attempt to them start teaching them about not judging others etc is just a big fat waste of their time.
By the time they reach sixth form or college, this judgemental behaviour normally dies down anyway.

In a perfect world, it would be your way as you've described  - and I agree with you in principle, after all, it's what I try and teach my teen (being a pretty nice boy he's not so judging of others anyway thank God)


Also a uniform is much much easier on a parent's financial pocket too!

So now your reasoning is based on teachers having a hard enough job?
Eh
Yes they do but one of the main jobs is preparing children for the real big wide world and that means teaching them to respect others.
You do not need uniforms to teach this to children in that they should respect others. Even more so young boys to respect girls.
I have no doubt you teach the best moralities on this and thus it proves my point it did not require you to place them in uniforms to prove this.
Your reasoning is what has helped teach your children, which is what every parent should do as its not just down to the teachers, but that teachers also have a fundemental part in promoting respect also to others.

Didge schools are overwrought as it is. Seriously.
Of course they touch upon this behaviour in lessons etc but they have so much paperwork and regulations etc it just becomes an uphill,struggle!

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the very obvious reason for uniform; it's instantly recognisable to the school so any behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the school, and they get to hear about it.

eddie wrote:Didge schools are overwrought as it is. Seriously.
Of course they touch upon this behaviour in lessons etc but they have so much paperwork and regulations etc it just becomes an uphill,struggle!

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the very obvious reason for uniform; it's instantly recognisable to the school so any behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the school, and they get to hear about it.

I did mention that eddie.

Girls wear uniforms in the Brownies and the Guides too. Is that considered to be repressive in some way these days?

Tommy Monk wrote:The girl would not have been pulled up if she WAS wearing the clothes as claimed...

Yes, she would have. I think that is the point. This is more about officious school administrators making up the rules as they go along.

Tommy Monk wrote:And teachers taking pictures of school kids would also be inappropriate and highly questionable too... do you really think teachers should all be running about the schools with cameras trying to snap kids in compromising positions or exposing too much flesh!?

What I think is the administrator has no proof. The girl looks perfectly proper, and until they have proof otherwise, looks like they lose.

Tommy Monk wrote:Just face it... if she looked like she did in her own claimed picture then she wouldn't have been pulled up... but as I said... she only had to be wearing the outside top more loosely off the shoulder and inside top a bit lower down to be exposing half her tits!!!

And that is probably exactly what she WAS doing... and also probably after numerous warnings too!!!

I don’t think so. It’s hard to mess up a simple ensemble like a top and a cardigan. This is how you show off your tits:



Not with a cardigan hugged around your torso. I believe this administrator is involved in some sort of feud.

Tommy Monk wrote:My old school had a 'no trainers' rule... strictly enforced... if you turned up in trainers on The odd occasion then you were immediately pulled up for it and sent to the head of dept to explain yourself and get a permission notice slip for the day... this was asked for throughout the day by any other teachers who saw you... if you didn't have the note then you were marched off to the head of dept to explain yourself etc...

The only excuse for trainers was that your shoes had fallen apart or got lost or chewed up by the dog etc... and Your parents were expected to get a new pair immediately... if you still had trainers on after a couple of days then you were sent home and parents were contacted!!!

Probably Also there was a note put on school record of this and that parents may have been neglecting child etc... multiple entries like this would probably Also mean social services were contacted etc... possible child protection action needed...

The rules are there for a reason.

Sounds more and more like the school administration is tooo defensive. Methinks there is more to her rash action. There’s gotta be a reason why they are acting so squirrelly.

I love that top!

Only for the bedroom though

eddie wrote:Didge schools are overwrought as it is. Seriously.
Of course they touch upon this behaviour in lessons etc but they have so much paperwork and regulations etc it just becomes an uphill,struggle!

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the very obvious reason for uniform; it's instantly recognisable to the school so any behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the school, and they get to hear about it.

But what you are saying Eddie is to me like where a parent uses a games console to babysit their child. A poor reason to justify using the gameconole to babysit, as the parent is wrought with difficulties
Yes schools are overwrought with problems and so are parents in many cases.
That is does not excuses to teaching the fundemental respect to other people.

So at last we have a benefit to unfirom, based though on a negative action.
IOs that really a benefit though Eddie, reputation of a school?
Which is basically making all children culpable to a wrong done in the name of the school?
You have instead raise a sperate issue, one of negative views again, reputation of the school itself and not the children.
You name and shame the individual not the school, as they never encouraged that child to act as they did

Raggamuffin wrote:Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it?  People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

My school had a strictly enforced dress code. An A line turquoise dress wth huge buttons. Traumatised a whole generation of girls those dresses did. We used to have to walk across the stage so they could see the the dress was long enough

eddie wrote:I love that top!

Only for the bedroom though

Agreed.  But compare it to the one this girls was wearing, and you can see she was the model of modesty.

I should add to my last point that it is the school creatinhg the reputation by having the uniform in the first place. Why should the school be associated with the behaviour of a child outside school? That would be absurd to claim. The only reason a child could be accused of this is by wearing that uniform. Even though again it is the school that has created the situation for then to have the childs actions associated with the school by being identified by the uniform. The child has committed the act not the school, yet the school ensures association by placing them in a uniform

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Did nobody here wear school uniform? That's a dress code isn't it?  People in many jobs have to adhere to a dress code too, or wear a uniform. I don't get why some people have such difficulty with the concept.

My school had a strictly enforced dress code. An A line turquoise dress wth huge buttons. Traumatised a whole generation of girls those dresses did. We used to have to walk across the stage so they could see the the dress was long enough

Haha!

I always wished our uniform included a tie or a hat.

Piss off quill... the teachers would have been eye witnesses and acted because of proven flouting of rules.


Plus... was that woman in titty showing top actually walking around the school like that...!?


As I said... the students have plenty of time outside of school to wear whatever they want... and a school that enforces their rules is not unusual... in fact it is praiseworthy!

Tommy Monk wrote:Piss off quill... the teachers would have been eye witnesses and acted because of proven flouting of rules.


Plus... was that woman in titty showing top actually walking around the school like that...!?


As I said... the students have plenty of time outside of school to wear whatever they want... and a school that enforces their rules is not unusual... in fact it is praiseworthy!

I agree Tommy. It's good to have some discipline in schools.

Tommy Monk wrote:Piss off quill... the teachers would have been eye witnesses and acted because of proven flouting of rules.


Plus... was that woman in titty showing top actually walking around the school like that...!?


As I said... the students have plenty of time outside of school to wear whatever they want... and a school that enforces their rules is not unusual... in fact it is praiseworthy!

The Rule is the problem in the first place and you do not combat poor rules by maintaining them.
You do so by breaking them.
Classic example of how bad rules needed to be broken.
"White only"
You see the reasoning here you offer is poor, that a rule should be adhered to because it is a rule, never questioning whether that rule is valid.
As seen there is no validity for covering up, as it does not tackle perceptives people have of others.
Thank goodness there has been people in history willing to stand up a break a poor rule

Tommy Monk wrote:Piss off quill... the teachers would have been eye witnesses and acted because of proven flouting of rules.

Plus... was that woman in titty showing top actually walking around the school like that...!?

As I said... the students have plenty of time outside of school to wear whatever they want... and a school that enforces their rules is not unusual... in fact it is praiseworthy!

You're hurt and upset, tommy. That's because you have been making up facts again. You lose respect when you do that.



Here's what she could have been wearing...an honest speculation, at least. But no, she was wearing a modest cardigan wrapped around a perfectly acceptable t-shirt.

So, if I was sent home for wearing trainers but then later took a photo of myself wearing shoes and posted it on Facebook, claiming that I had been following school dress code all along...!?


That would be 'evidence' would it...!?


And I would be proved right because of this...!?





Or maybe the school authority were picking on her because they is racist...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

So, if I was sent home for wearing trainers but then later took a photo of myself wearing shoes and posted it on Facebook, claiming that I had been following school dress code all along...!?

That would be 'evidence' would it...!?

And I would be proved right because of this...!?



Or maybe the school authority were picking on her because they is racist...!!!

You are making up facts again, tommy.  I can see it now.  The first question the judge would ask you is, what facts do you have to show the photo was doctored?   Zilch!

You've written this whole script about how the photo was faked...yet, you haven't got a single fact to prove it.  Why should we indulge your imaginings?

Oh dear,
So the only thing Tommy has to point to being guilty of lying is something he thought up he could do himself. Poor is just scrapping the barrel of how bad this is to claim a person is guilty. So your belief to them lying is not based off evidence but your own ability to lie yourself at claiming you were not wearing trainers.

I worry for how Quill is going to mock you after that, because is not going to be pretty when he does. Believe me, that really deserves to be mocked at how poor your reasoning was Tommy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

My school had a strictly enforced dress code. An A line turquoise dress wth huge buttons. Traumatised a whole generation of girls those dresses did. We used to have to walk across the stage so they could see the the dress was long enough

Haha!

I always wished our uniform included a tie or a hat.

The posh ones had hats!

Did I ever say any photo was 'doctored'...!?

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge schools are overwrought as it is. Seriously.
Of course they touch upon this behaviour in lessons etc but they have so much paperwork and regulations etc it just becomes an uphill,struggle!

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the very obvious reason for uniform; it's instantly recognisable to the school so any behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the school, and they get to hear about it.

But what you are saying Eddie is to me like where a parent uses a games console to babysit their child. A poor reason to justify using the gameconole to babysit, as the parent is wrought with difficulties
Yes schools are overwrought with problems and so are parents in many cases.
That is does not excuses to teaching the fundemental respect to other people.

So at last we have a benefit to unfirom, based though on a negative action.
IOs that really a benefit though Eddie, reputation of a school?
Which is basically making all children culpable to a wrong done in the name of the school?
You have instead raise a sperate issue, one of negative views again, reputation of the school itself and not the children.
You name and shame the individual not the school, as they never encouraged that child to act as they did

I also said GOOD behaviour too. It works both ways obviously!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I love that top!

Only for the bedroom though

Agreed.    But compare it to the one this girls was wearing, and you can see she was the model of modesty.

Oh I know! I'm defending the rights of the school rules but I did say, I thought the outfit was fine.
But rules are rules.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But what you are saying Eddie is to me like where a parent uses a games console to babysit their child. A poor reason to justify using the gameconole to babysit, as the parent is wrought with difficulties
Yes schools are overwrought with problems and so are parents in many cases.
That is does not excuses to teaching the fundemental respect to other people.

So at last we have a benefit to unfirom, based though on a negative action.
IOs that really a benefit though Eddie, reputation of a school?
Which is basically making all children culpable to a wrong done in the name of the school?
You have instead raise a sperate issue, one of negative views again, reputation of the school itself and not the children.
You name and shame the individual not the school, as they never encouraged that child to act as they did

I also said GOOD behaviour too. It works both ways obviously!

Will answeer before I go.
That is still reputation for the school in looking good more so than the behaviour of the child being rewarded. The school is rewarded by reputation, which may have had no effect on this childs good behaviour outside school
The only reason the schools gets this association is by placing them in uniform and wish to take credit off the childs actions.
When you think about it that is poor and wrong to immediately claim credit for something they may have not had any imput with.

It's just the way it is Didge! Think about it logically
If you were choosing a school for your child you wouldn't send her to one where you knew the children always had bad behaviour or were seen lurking around pissy alleyways smoking, would you?

It's all beside the point.

Uniforms show a body of people belonging to the same building or club or shop or ship or army.....

Lost of places of business wear uniforms and so do schools, I don't se the harm? Only the benefits.

There is no proof that the way she claims to have been dressed in The picture was the way she was dressed at the school...

The girl and her mother should pull themselves together. The girl tried to swing it, but didn't get away with it. She should just wear the proper clothes in future.

eddie wrote:It's just the way it is Didge! Think about it logically
If you were choosing a school for your child you wouldn't send her to one where you knew the children always had bad behaviour or were seen lurking around pissy alleyways smoking, would you?

It's all beside the point.

Uniforms show a body of people belonging to the same building or club or shop or ship or army.....

Lost of places of business wear uniforms and so do schools, I don't se the harm? Only the benefits.

I completely disagree and why the enrolment system to schools is flawed espcially when religious when they are able to discrminate on entry to those school. Uniforms are a form of control, nothing more, which denies freedom of expression, how you want to look yourself. It teaches a very negative view, one that deny artistic flavour within people.
It uniforms them into negative ways of thinking and not posivtively.
Again buisnesses you have a choice to join such a place of work, a child has no choice, they have to go to school.
A school is trying to identify with children outside school by placing them in uniform, when they are not responsible for children outside school when they leave. Its a poor philosophy which seeks reputation through using children when they are outside school.
So choosing a school yes we all want the best, but how did that school become the best?
You never question that part Eddie, you are taking for granted uniforms provide benefits, as seen they do not, benefitting a schools reputation does not benefit the actual child.

Really have to go but this is interesting and will catch up tomorrow

Did people used to appear in the press when they got told off at school? I can't believe the attention seeking which goes on these days.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, don't mean to be grumpy. I just don't like it when people assume, with no proof, that someone is lying, that's not a healthy approach to others in my opinion.

I think there's a fine balance between teaching your children to get along in society and teaching them to question authority when appropriate. The way you dress is a personal choice and a form of self expression, and it's nobody's business unless your clothing is demonstrably disruptive (and in some cases not even that's a good enough excuse. I have the right to wear a pro-Obama shirt regardless of whether someone else thinks he's the Antichrist

I've always thought that politics is largely about the question of what we want our society to become. So I see something like this and ask, do we want to raise a new generation of Americans that think it's acceptable for authorities to make unreasonable calls like this?

Also, I think the people who truly succeed are those who don't put their noses down and follow the rules -- companies want creative employees, and creativity doesn't come from always doing exactly as you're told.

I get what you're saying but haven't you noticed how spoilt and "me me me" teens are today? They have no fear or respect of authority and you know why?

Because of parents like this one!

"Oh well, it's the school,rules honey, we knew the rules when we picked the school. I think it's a bit silly but hey, those are the rules!"

What's wrong with that?
Choose your bloody battles fgs!

Many Americans have little to no choice in what school they send their children to. I had no choice in my high school and was actually forced out of my junior high for the crime of living on the wrong side of the street that the school district boundary ran along.

According to data from the Nation Center for Education Statistics, the average price of a year of private elementary school is $7,770, and the average annual cost of private high school is $13,030.

Meanwhile the median U.S. salary is $26,695 and over two-thirds of Americans earn less than $42,000 per year ...

Nobody on this girl's side is arguing that our schools should be chaotic free-for-alls with no rules. The issue is that there is nothing that would be distracting about how she's dressed in any context in the U.S. -- girls dress like this for church, young women dress like this for work; I bet this girl has teachers who dress quite similarly to what she's wearing.



Stock photo, but that to me proves even more what people think is an appropriate standard of dress for a high school classroom.