Editing note: Edited for brazenness and biting commentary 8:30p 7/4/04....
"... at the very least (Aycock's school uniform policy) can reinforce an early lesson that one's dress ought to be appropriate to the setting.
Is what their children wear more poperly the purview of their parents? Absolutely. But remember, all the sagging and drooping that helped create this problem in the first place originates at home.
Too many parents have abdicated their responsibility. And could use a dressing-down of their own."
In this morning's N&R, editorial page editor Allen Johnson's weekly op/ed column (never posted) endorses the implementation of a school uniform policy at Aycock Middle School. Johnson properly diagnoses the problem of inappropriate student dress as a parental failure but then mis-prescribes the cure by buying into "the most over-sold academic fad since New Math".
Allen called last week to get my views on the policy change but apparently I was unable to sway his opinion. The main point I tried to get across in the interview was the fact that Aycock has had a stringent dress code (which follows current School Board policy) for many years. This time-tested policy served its purpose very well under previous administrations because it was rigidly enforced. This has not been the case since the school changed prinipals last year... so, as you might expect, the kids have pushed the stylin' envelope. I made that point at a recent school board meeting...
"In year’s past if a student showed his underwear an administrator would tie a rope around the sagging students pants to keep them in place. If a girl decided to throw modesty out the window some day, a baggy t-shirt from the school closet would correct the problem. It wouldn't take long until the kids got the message: Dress appropriately or you will be embarrased"
An important factor in the adoption of school uniforms at Aycock is the fact that the preponderance of inappropriate dress (sagging pants) is exhibited by a relatively small group of lower income, and mostly male, black students. Why is this identification important? Because if we are loathe to identify where the lack of personal responsibility exists, we might never take the steps necessary to correct the problem and such behaviour might be viewed as endemic at the school - it is not.
By refusing to single out or criticize the few offending students and their un-involved (or worse, un-caring) families, Aycock's administration (and by extension the School Board) avoids the dreaded and nebulous charge of "institutional racism".
That incidious mantra is invoked all-to-readily by those who refuse to acknowledge that people have plenty of free will to screw up their own lives without any help from "the establishment". Rather than call for personal responsibility, these same people believe the better answer to the transgressions of a few in the case of Aycock is to subject the entire student body to a policy that "seems draconian" even to Johnson.
Johnson quotes yours truly in his column: "This is not right. It's a Band-Aid. It's dressing up a problem as opposed to addressing the problem."
Unless Bill Cosby's recent sentiments regarding personal responsibility are taken to heart and acted upon, my children - and all other properly discliplined public school children of all races - will continue to be required to pay the price for the breakdown of familial self-discipline on the part of those who are the subject of Cosby's ire. It is clear that Aycock's uniform policy is intended to supplant parental authority, or, in the case of the offending students, the lack thereof.
Public schools should not be expected to take on the role of surrogate parent - but this is the role they find themselves in many times... like now... like dictating my, and your, children's choice in how they will dress.
I don't like it one bit and we are pondering our options for next year.
******************
Read More.......... Links to information about school uniforms - pro and con and HoggsBlog's posts on public education including accounts of how the controversy began and has unfolded in Guilford County.
11:31:17 AM 
|
