Yeah!!Finally some one isn't afraid to say NO to the little darlings!
I survived a dress code at North High,I didn't lose "Me" in the process and it didn't stiffle my glowing creativity!

And just to thro this in did ya know that the new "fad" is to actually have their tongue sliced in two! So they can have a forked tongue?

Yeah, same here at SHHS. If you weren't dressed properly you didn't attend class. Just exactly when was the dress code done away with?

No shorts, no jeans, no T's, and sneakers had to be clean and in good shape (if we were allowed to wear sneakers).

I look at the kids now getting off the school bus and wonder what the heck is going though the parents minds. I guess guidance for little Sally and little Andrew just doesn't exist.

Hooray to the school board for instituting the dress code!

And, what in the hell is up with these little girls and their skin-tight clothes and belly shirts? What are these parents thinking. Why does an 8 - 16 year old have to be making the equivilant of a sexual statement? And no one seems to really care, it's just accepted.

The thing I think is digusting is that Abercrombie & Fitch makes thongs for little kids.

... and more disgusting than that, WVU-M, is that parents buy them for their little darlings.

Nice to see the school board has a BACKBONE.

Parents are afraid to parent.That's whats wrong with the kids.
Hopefully someone from the school board will be told that they're making the right move.And to keep up the good work.

Maybe someone from the school board reads these forums and will see that it is appreciated.

Kudos to the school board. I just can't believe some of the things I see kids wearing to school. I mean, baggy pants hanging down below the crack of their a**??? Who wants to walk around all day trying to hold their pants up anyway? And pants that are so baggy and long that they have to walk around hiking their pant legs up so they don't trip and fall. And I have to wonder if the parents even know their children wear some of these outfits. I know there are kids who take a change of clothes with them and change into something a little more revealing when they get to school. And alot of working parents have already left for work when their child gets dressed for school so maybe they have no idea what their child wears. But as Yossarian said, the parents buy most of these clothes, so what can you say? Kids today don't go to school to learn, they go for a fashion show.

I'm totally for a dress code. I would love to see a relaxed uniform instituted. It would level the field between the haves and have nots, not to mention remove the slut factor for all those J. Lo wannabes out there. It is so hard to find acceptable clothing for my child when I go to the mall. I can't stand all the shirts that proclaim "Spoiled" or "Brat" across the chest. Is this what people want their child to be perceived as? Honestly, it's about time we have a standardized dress code.

On the other hand, there will be cases of things that are relatively appropriate that will get axed in the process. Example, I send my daughter to school in a cute little sun dress, but her shoulders are exposed. It is something I would send her to church wearing, but suddenly she can't wear it to school. There is a fine line there, and unfortunately in reforming the blatant offenders, we will step on the toes of the well intentioned. It must be enforced uniformly across the board, or people will yell favoritism, or worse, discrimination. Ah, political correctness. If people would only police themselves, and their child's closet!!

Sometimes dress codes, and school rules can get a little out of hand. I think uniforms are the way to go in public schools: 1) kids don't have to worry about if their clothes are "in style" or not
2) this would help on field trips so the teachers would be able to spot the kids easily
3) this would get rid of the fight between school/parents on what's appopriate & what's not
4) students wouldn't make fun of kids because that kids clothes are from Kmart and hers/his
are from Saks

I wore a uniform when I went to Catholic school...
trust me, it wasn't the most fashionable attire..we
had these 'salt and pepper' corduroy pants and
white short sleeve dress shirts...thankfully we didn't
have to wear ties...the poor girls had these red
plaid jumpers with white blouses...

Today, I think kids wouldn't mind wearing something
like khaki slacks and polo shirts, if they had to wear
something mandatory...my son is 'on the edge' of
today's fashion trends, but not over it....yet !!!

The older generation has always been apalled at the younger generations fashion sense and always will. It's just a given. It would throw off some delicate balance of the world if it wasn't that way.

lol Heather. I've often thought about that very fact! How very true!

What kids wear AFTER school is their problem.But I still say a dress code in school is the way to go.I never had a problem with my daughter,I let her wear pretty much what she wanted when she wasn't in school.I'm just glad she was into "punk"! I even shaved her head for her!

There's no way that public schools will ever institute a school uniform. It impinges on too many fundamental freedoms. Plus, you can bet your bottom dollar that kids and parents alike would boycott public schools.

While I think it is necessary that kids should be covered from the neck down to the mid-thigh in public schools, I do not agree with the ban on clothing that contains political or "offensive" speech. How does the School Board define "offensive"? I find a lot of things offensive (as someone mentioned, those little T-shirts that say "spoiled" across the front... they're mostly innocuous but I may be offended by them just because I think they're stupid), so there has to be a careful line drawn around what constitutes "offensive". If a kid comes to school wearing a shirt with F**K prominently emblazened on it, that is probably grounds for sending him home. But without a clear delineation of acceptable and unacceptable logos, words, or phrases, the schools run the risk of sending home every kid who wears something that another person simply doesn't like.

Several public school systems in Detroit and New Yok (state) have already insititued uniforms. I don't see where this would infringe on someone's rights. I guess you could argue that they should have a right to wear what they want, but a dress code then would inhibit that as well. People wouldn't boycott the public schools because not everyone is willing to fork over several thousand dollars to send their kids to private school, and if they do they will still have to pay taxes which will go to the public schools.

I do agree with you on how to they define on what's offensive. What's offensive to them might not be offensive to you and me, or vice versa. With the unifroms though you won't have to worry about that because all the shirt would say is "Washington County Schools" or something like that. I actually think the reason uniforms are important is because not ever kid can afford to buy the "in" clothes, but with uniforms you don't have to worry about that.

(chin up and back is straight ) Who cares about kids "rights"! They're suppose to do what we grown-ups tell them until they're outta here!Get over it! Bunch of spoiled little sissys anyway! Make em wear uniforms.It'd might do them some good.WE are the parents.WE are the adults(like it or not).The kids now are so coddled and cushioned and petted and spoiled it's sickening.Be adults and stand up to them!

I really hope you were kidding with that last post there. "Who cares about kids' rights? We're the adults we can tell them what to do!"? Yeah, like, when a kid gets raped by a catholic priest, who cares about his rights! The priest is the adult, the kid should listen to everything he says! The priest is the adult!

(point is, that was a silly argument)

Teenagers will always rebel, no matter how hard you crack the whip or no matter how much you let them do their own thing. It's the nature of human development. This is kind of a stupid example since it's completely fictional, but remember Alex P. Keaton from Family Ties? The only way for him to rebel against his hippie parents was to become ultra conservative. But hey, he was rebelling. That's what kids do.

I do think children should have the same rights as adults because one day they will be voting, but it's our job as parents to put our values and punish them as we see fit. I do however think that we spend too much time worrying about the kids self esteem, they didn't in my Grandparent's day and I think they turned out pretty well.

P.S. I'm still for uniforms

REALITY CHECK!!-Family Ties was aTV SHOW!
Bleeding heart parents-whiney,sissy,disrespectful little brats.








P.S. I knew I'd get a rise out of ya!!

The parents may boycott, but they wouldn't turn their backs on public schools because they will have to wear uniforms or have a very strict dress code in most private schools. I think WVD was trying to point out that parents have lost their backbone when it comes to raising their child to be thoughtful, moral people. We seem to leave more and more parenting to the school. For example, if parents were doing their job, we wouldn't need Character Counts. And maybe if we had uniforms there wouldn't be as much jealousy and fighting, and there would be more focus on studies. Yes teens will rebel. All of us did it, some in more extreme ways that others.

I agree whole-heartedly with Momsapilot and WVD. Parents bear 100% of the blame for they childrens' lack of morals, lack of respect, and questionable education. They have lost control of their children. The media controls their children. Get them back before it's too late.

Hey WVDragonLady --- I think your daughter shouldn't have been so "punk" and should have had long, straight hair with a pink bow in it like any good girl should. And it's your piss-poor parenting skills that allowed her to be that way that's going to be at fault when she turns into a raving psychotic like all "coddled" punk kids end up. Because all "punk" kids are "brats" and troublemakers anyway. Parents are ALWAYS right, since their adults. So we don't even have to listen to the younger generation since adults are never wrong about anything.


Just throwin' some of your own logic right back at ya.

Well, duh, that's why I prefaced by saying it was FICTIONAL.

But I stand by my statement, as it still is a perfect example of the nature of human adolescent development.



I take issue with the word "sissy". You have every right to express your opinion on 'bleeding heart parents', so say what you will about it, but, just for your own information, the word "sissy" is obviously referential toward a homosexual and is meant to imply weakness and cowardice, as if to say all homosexuals are weak and cowardly. That's pretty ignorant and very stereotypical. Next time why don't you use the word "faggot"? It's the same thing, isn't it, as a "sissy"? But now the word "faggot" is stigmatized and so no one uses it anymore, lest they be branded a big old intolerant uneducated redneck, and lose any credibility they once had. Same should be true with the word "sissy". It's inflamatory, ignorant, and hurtful. Say it if you must, but know that using words such as that also reflects poorly on you.

But back to topic. With the dominant attitude of "do what I say, I'm the adult" toward a teenager, it's only going to push them further away and make them resentful. The teenage years are a time of self expression, of finding a place in the world. To stifle the creativity and experimentation at that age -- be it in the style of clothes, in social circles, in music, etc. -- is just going to create anger. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed in dressing for school, as melaniekt said, such as if the word f**k were emblazoned on a t-shirt or if too much cleavage were exposed, but overall, experimentation is the way a teenager finds him/herself. Parents should provide guidance at that age, not indiscriminate discipline.

I've never heard the word sissy as a term for homosexuals, but the origin of the word comes from sister. So if your baseball coach called you a sister or sissy it meant you were throwing like a girl, and since girls didn't play sports in the early part of the 20th century it meant you couldn't throw worth a crap. Most players didn't take it as the coach calling you gay, but you just weren't doing as well as you should be. By the way I'm not saying that the term is good, because there are some really good female athletes out there, like the Williams sisters that play tennis.

Back to the topic. Parents today spend to much time trying to become their sons/daughters best friend when in reality, they need to lay down the law. If you let your kids get away with everything, then they are going to be a bunch of spoilt brats! If you don't like they way they dress, make them change into something else. Then if they bring a change of clothes to school to change out of what you made them wear, ground them for a week with no friends, parties, tv, etc...

Exactly. Effeminizing a boy baseball player's throw, to emasculate and equate him to a female, is to call him feminine or gay, which is equated to weakness and cowardice. That's my point exactly. This was a good example, and I hope that I've illustrated the point a bit better by piggybacking off that example, so that we now understand that the word is inflammatory.



I'm of the opinion that "making" a teenager do something out of force is the wrong step to take. How about sitting down and reasoning things out? Illustrating a point with logic is always more convincing that acting out of sheer emotion or anger, which makes the parent look like a control freak and makes the teenager resent them.

Another example of a parent-child relationship from a movie instead of from Family Ties, excuse the pop culture dorkiness: In the movie "Witness", the 'Englishman' (Harrison Ford), a Phila police officer, comes to stay with an Amish family. The Amish boy finds the policeman's pistol and starts to play with it. Touching the pistol is considered 'unclean' and forbidden in Amish culture. When the parents discover the boy playing with the pistol, RATHER THAN ACTING ON ANGER right away, they sit down and talk to him about it. They explain that life is sacred, and that the pistol is meant for the taking of human life. They ask him questions about how he feels about the pistol and the taking of human life. Now THAT is good parenting.

I don't think reasoning works because I think you'll end up arguing in the end anyway. My cousin just had a three year old, and she tried the reasoning thing with him, and it didn't work! It just made the kid a big brat, and not a sole wanted to be near him.

Where there is patience, there is understanding.

Trying to reason with a 3-year-old is going to be ineffective no matter who the 3-year-old is. I thought we were talking about teenagers. I think that they would understand and respond to a discussion much better than a 3-year-old.

It seems that everyone who has posted is of the "crack the whip", "give 'em hell" mindset, and thinks that anyone who isn't of the same mindset is just coddling and babying their kids, turning them loose and letting them run free and cause havoc. I would disagree, and say that it's actually the kids of the control-freak disciplinarian parents who are the ones that end up the most marginalized, confused, and sociopathic as adults. While kids who drink or take drugs may be more frequently seen, they cause a lot less damage to society. It's the Jeffrey Dahmers, Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of this world (who, I submit, come from homes where the authority figure is to be obeyed and thus feared without question) who I think people fear more than a couple of teenagers wearing baggy pants and drinking beer in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

I don't mean beat the kid senseless, but lay down the law. Also, Ted Bundy and all seriel killers were and are mentally ill! There are plenty of people who grew up in a strict household who have turned out quite well, and by strict I don't mean abusive.

I understand that you are advocating for strictness which doesn't necessarily mean abusiveness. But in a way, a lot of parents get off on being strict. In my opinion, a lot of parents react to their own feelings of powerlessness -- whether it be from their jobs, growing up powerless, or just plain feeling like Joe Shmo who's accomplished nothing in life -- by being strict with their kids. "Laying down the law" and stifling their kids' social development (in this case, via restricting their clothing to a uniform) is a way to make the parent feel empowered, and thus cope with his/her own issues of self-worth. In no way am I saying that ALL strict parents are like this, but it seems to me that a lot are. Neither am I saying that kids shouldn't have a certain level of discipline. But there is a way to discipline -- and to nurture self-discipline -- within a child that doesn't rise to the level of "do what I say, because I said so".

I'm not talking about micromanaging every aspect of the child, but you have to have the ultimate authority as a parent. When it comes to what is in the best interest and safety of the child, you have to be able to control the situation. If parents let the kids rule, they won't listen/obey when it truly matters. Yes open communication is a great foundation, but sometimes when you start talking, their eyes just glaze over and they do the old smile and nod without hearing a word you said. As for uniforms, I'm for a loose one. As long as the pants/shorts/skirts are beige or navy, they could be any fabric/style desired, etc. Kids will find ways to express themselves, be it with their hair, accessories, backpacks, shoes, whatever. I just think it would eliminate some of the distraction in school and level the playing field between the haves and have-nots. Sure some of them may walk in wearing J Crew pants and others with blue light specials, but they all look the same in the end. Just my opinion.

MTV and soap operas are raising most of our kids. If you don't believe me just watch them sometime. It's disgusting and yet we have all turned our back on it. The media can get away with just about anything now a days. (homosexual priests, basketball players messing with 19 yr olds and 19 yr olds going to his room....hummm.) What was she thinking $$$$. Our kids hear this bullshit 24 hrs a day. What's wrong with immorality!!! After all, wasn't that one of our Presidents who was getting into some action on the side. Did it need to be plastered all over the media!
Talk about teaching our kids to be respectful, huh.

Wow! Bester is trying the relaxed uniform. Good for them. I hope the program is a success and spreads to the rest of the schools. Don't know about the whole doing laundry thing, but the free shirt for volunteer hours is a great idea. What a great incentive to get help in the classroom.

I live in Worcester County and two years ago they tried an optional school uniform for public schools. By the end of the first marking period the kids who started wearing the uniforms were no longer. I don't agree with Public schools instituting a uniform. Yes, Jcrew pants do differ in style, fit, and feel from bluelight pants and kids do notice. Making children wear all the same colors of clothes is not going to make them all hang out and love on another. There will still be cliques, there will still be distractions.

Oh, he wasn't the only one, sweetie. Check out our presidents from the early 20th century who were having kids out of wedlock. Billy-boy was just the only one who was unlucky enough to have it happen to him in the age of the Freedom of Information Act. I guess no one has ever accused the media of having restraint or taste.

First of all I'd like to welcome everyone to the 21st century. Yeah poor Bill Clinton was abused by the horrible media, boo hoo. Our kids are growing up on MTV and all the "bullshit" the media and television feeds them because there is not always someone around to teach them any better. Someone to turn the TV off and spend quality time with them. Someone to teach them to do things to enrich their life beyond just watching television.

In regards to the topic of this forum, school dress codes, I don't think it is a big shocker one way or the other (in reference to Washington County establishing a dress code). Previously at all the high schools and middle schools certain dress codes were established. This new one basically just sets one main dress code for the entire school system and it is up to the schools now to enforce it. The dress code is not that radical, kids are basically prevented from wearing outrageous clothing. Too bad so sad, you don't need to wear clothing with political or obscene messages to middle or high school. And some kids may dress poorly, but not all do, so don't judge them all by a few bad apples. A dress code preventing outrageous clothing and behavior is good for any school system, so good job to the Board of Ed for what they did, even though it pretty much already existed.

"Obscene", sure. But as soon as the word is defined.

Political? Bah. Why not? Last I checked, the 1st Amendment was applicable even to kids in middle and high school.

But I'm sure if a kid wore a T-shirt about Jesus no one would complain.

Probably because the kids of other beliefs are worried that if they "made an issue" of the jesus t-shirt they'd be singled out for harassment.Which more than likely would happen.You notice that "official" holidays are christian ones.?

If someone wears a Jesus t-shirt isn't that religious? Not political? Considering school prayer has been pretty much done away with I don't think that anyone could get away with that. Of course the 1st amendment protects them of their right to express themselves, however when you are in a school different rules apply. If a kid tells a teacher to "go f*@k off" I don't think the kid could argue his suspension by saying he was just exercising his 1st amendment right, freedom of speech. Long story short does a kid really need to wear clothing with a political message? I think its more of a distraction and they're in the school to learn not to cause a racous. Now if they want to wear it outside of school then go for it.

Why shouldn't a kid be allowed to wear a political or Jesus t-shirt? You said they have the right to wear political t-shirts, so don't they have the right to wear religious ones? Just because someone is wearing a Jesus t-shirt doesn't mean they're trying to convert someone to Christianity! Besides, if we had uniforms we wouldn't have this problem.

Wearing a Jesus T-shirt is protected religious speech. Totally allowed in schools. I don't think anyone would disagree or have a problem with that. Kids are going to get picked on for any number of reasons concerning their clothes anyway. But let's just say that, instead of "Jesus", that shirt said "Dean for President, 2004". That's a political message, isn't it? Why should that not be allowed in schools, when "Jesus" and other religious speech is allowed?

I have to counter democracylover's question "...does a kid really need to wear clothing with a political message?" with a question of my own: If your answer to this question is No (which it seems to be), why then does a kid really need to wear clothing to school with a *religious* message? Isn't that religious message equally as capable of causing a distraction as a political one?

My point is that religious speech and political speech are often only mildly distinguishable, but that neither should be disallowed in public schools because they are both forms of protected speech under the 1st amendment.

Looks like this topic is turning into a WWJW discussion.
By the way, God told me to say that.

What is wrong with instituting a "business casual" dress code?
It's a known fact that your attitude is somewhat shapened by your dress.
Why have the schools degraded their expectations of what should be worn in the classroom? There was a time (not all that long ago) when shorts were forbidden, sleeveless shirts were forbidden, torn, dirty or unserviceable clothing was forbidden.
Freedom of expression and so-called 14th amendment rights to the side. Aren't we trying to raise our children so they can be our future leaders?

There comes a time when political correctness needs to be replaced with common sense. This isn't a legal dispute for crying out loud, it's a guideline for what to wear in school.

(God told me to say that)

Thank you , Yo. That was well said. Most businesses have a dress code if they don't have a uniform. Very few employers leave it your discretion to wear what is appropriate. School is just like a business. Learning is the job, students are the employees.

Exactly, going to school is a student's ocupation! I'm just for something simple so we don't have to worry about what shirt appropraite for students to wear, and kids won't make fun of kids in Kmart clothes.

One distinction though: no one is COMPELLED to work in a place that has a business casual dress code. That's a choice we get to make as employed adults. Kids are required by law to go to school. On top of that you're going to force kids to dress like little Gap ads?

I don't know how long it's been since everyone else has been a teenager, but if you can try to remember what it was like, you might remember that some things - like dressing differently or dyeing your hair pink or whatever - is just a part of growing up. It doesn't hurt anybody. In fact, it's healthy and just another growing pain if you ask me. Trying to restrain that in a kid is going to make them into ticking time bombs when they're adults if they don't get it out of their systems when they're young.

We need to act like mature adults and take the responsibility of raising our children. It's called guidance. Let's be parents to our children and NOT their best friends.

No one's going to turn into a time bomb just because they were shown some guidance about growing up. If that were the case there would be a lot of over 40 year olds with exploding heads.

Children don't have rights. The only rights children have or should expect to have are the rights that their parents grant to them. Are we so afraid of our children that we won't take the responsibility to show them what's right and what's wrong?

Children are NOT little miniature adults. They are CHILDREN for pete's sake. They look to us for leadership and guidance.

If we're looking to get things out of their little systems then maybe we should go ahead and give them drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and guns. Then they'll grow tired of it and be responsibile adults. yeah... right...

Be a responsible adult for once. Be a parent to your child.

Thank you, Yossarian. I understand your point: children do not have rights. At least not til they're 18 and old enough to be out on their own. I will remember your point the next time a child is raped or sodomized or abused. After all, the child does not have rights - even the right to be free from abuse, or the right to speak up and tell someone about it, since that would be too much of an exercise of "free speech" (after all, it might hurt an adult!). I will also remember your point the next time the underprivileged child applies for school lunch tickets because his/her family is too poor to pay for lunch. After all, poor children do not have the right to go to school and get a hot meal. And forget about the kid whose parents do not have private insurance, and is rushed to the hospital with some life-threatening injury. He doesn't have a right to medical treatment. He's a child, for chrissakes. Who wants to give them rights?! They don't need it. The little trouble-maker might wear a political t-shirt that offends an adult. Yep. That'll work!