Schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code

Thank you for the response. In response to the financial issue: Books and stationeries are necessities to progress in school while uniforms are not. Even if the school can provide financial aid to the family why waste financial resources on items the student don"t necessarily need to learn in school? Gender stereotyping: "If there is a concern with the specific uniform worn in a certain school, it would be a good exercise to address the gender stereotypes it propagates in its specific context. Eradicating a uniform dress code instead, is a means of running away from the problems of gender stereotyping in our world and pretending that they don't exist. " There"s a fine line between trying to solve the problem and pretending it does not exist. A free dress code policy is to ensure students know that they hold the freedom to negate gender stereotyping by being able to dress however they want. "Even if children grow up with little conception of gender stereotypes in school (which is unlikely, with or without uniform dress codes), they will definitely be exposed to the same when they grow up. It is the duty of authority figures in their lives to ensure that they are prepared for this occurrence, and will not get a rude shock when it happens." I"m sorry to be rude but that is just ignorance. Even if the students will be exposed to gender stereotyping in the future it does not justify the fact that they should conform to it while in school. The authorities serve to help prevent the occurrence but it"s up to education to properly guide the students on to the right path and prevent gender stereotyping while they are still in school. Factory-like education system I"m suggesting a uniform dress code is an extension of the already one-size-fit-all education system. It is adding on to the effect of the current education system. As for the reason why the old education system might not work in this day and age, I think that"s a debate for another time. The response to my round 3 argument was indeed misrepresented. What I meant was the fear of being judged based on how a person is dressed is a not a factor that can be resolved by implementing a dress code. Because it is more than what it seems. The fear is a manifestation of social weakness. I apologize if I cannot make myself clearer. The bullying examples were to reinforce the argument that the dress code is implemented to attempt to remedy that fear of judgment by others but the bullies will simply find other ways of bullying the victim. Because the dress code is not targeted at the root of the problem to which Pro has claimed to have resolved with the implementation of a dress code in round 1: "A uniform dress code allows a student to fit in without fear of judgment reflected in the way they dress." And yes, "the profile of Japanese schoolyard bullies includes 'popular, intelligent children with good social skills'." That is what would be referred to as the lack of social weakness. The profiles of the bullies are consisted of people who are much capable socially, that is the reason these "social bullies" succeed at bullying those with social weaknesses. They utilize social interactions as the tool for bullying. "1."Anatomy of Japanese Bullying." Nippon.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nippon.com...; "Clearly, bullying in Japan has very little to do with a uniform dress code. There are social factors as well, stemming from a "survival of the fittest" culture in Japan." The above source stated by Pro and also the statement from Pro suggests no correlation between the reducement of the fear of judgment from other students and a dress code policy as stated below by Pro in round 2. "This allows children to focus on the learning (that schools purpose to impart) that takes place without fear of judgment from other students, especially in tender, impressionable ages, and teenage years, when social status is of particular consequence to students." In response to my rebuttal of the round 2 argument" I was in no way suggesting the problem was not blurred by the dress code. I was suggesting the prejudice created by the difference in wealth is too powerful of an element to be blurred completely by a dress code. A dress code covers only an insignificant amount of that element. What is blurred by the dress code is hardly a solution to the overall problem. The rebuttal by Pro regarding the Qatar women"s basketball team" I think the point of the argument was missed completely. The team chose to forfeit the match because the hijab was not allowed on the basketball court due to clashes between religion and safety. In Singapore religious head pieces are allowed but so are they in the U.S. and the argument was the implementation of a dress code will be infringing the right of the students. Also the argument for Pro I had a hard time understanding why the examples of Singapore and India was brought up when there was no mentioning of a uniform dress code for Singapore and India. In response to the rebuttal of paragraph 3: Studies done on first impressions on human beings I"m sure it"s hard to disagree that it does not apply to a school setting, for students are humans as well. As for the vagueness of the argument, I simplified it for the sake of the readers. I shall quote from the study: "Correlation of Time-Constrained With Time-Unconstrained Judgments As shown in Table 1, even after 100-ms exposure to a face, trait judgments were highly correlated with judgments made in the absence of time constraints. Although the correlations for all judgments but attractiveness increased with the increase in exposure from 100 to 1,000 ms, none of these changes was significant. We compared the correlations at 100 and 500 ms, at 500 and 1,000 ms, and at 100 and 1,000 ms using Williams" test for dependent correlations (Steiger, 1980). None of these tests reached significance. We expected that we would find the highest correlation for judgments of attractiveness. Attractiveness, after all, is a property of facial appearance." For further information please refer to my source. Also to note the journal written by Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman was done in 1995 aimed at remedying violence and crime related issue in schools through uniform clothing. However, I will quote from the source Pro has listed from Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman: "Despite the advantages, wearing uniforms is not a panacea for school problems. Furthermore, opponents view such policies as an infringement on students' rights, which is one reason that these policies are more difficult to implement at the high-school level, given the greater independence of older students and their expressed needs for individuality and diversity. Freedom of expression, which is suppressed by the wearing of uniforms, has also been cited as a legal issue by the American Civil Liberties Union." This is supporting my argument of expression of individuality and not a complete solution to the school problems and on top of that it has been cited as a legal issue. It is true that Pro has cited his points for his argument based on Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman"s argument. However what was stated were not the complete findings of Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman. In response to the rebuttal of paragraph 4: Quoting from Pro"s argument in round 2 "Uniforms prepare students for the reality of the world that awaits them. A great many professions, both high-skilled and otherwise, make use of a strict uniform dress code. The reasons for these include respect to the responsibility of the profession, respect to the people they interact with, or simply a desire to impress and give off an impression of attention to detail and good grooming. I shall give just a few examples. In the law industry, lawyers in most countries have a strict dress code before attending court, judges wear robes and in many jurisdictions, even wigs. Employees in banks have a strict dress code, extending even to the way they present their hair. Businessmen and government officials wear suits or office attire. Constitutional institutions like police and fire defence have their own uniforms. In more technical professions, less of this is seen, though janitors are an example of those who often wear a certain uniform. In short, including uniforms in school allow children to come to understand and expect the demands of appearance that the world makes of professionals." I have listed the reasons, not the possible reasons, to the professions stated as examples by Pro to why these professions are required to have a uniform due to the vague explanation in the above paragraph to further support my previous argument to why these professions wear their uniforms due to reason and not for the sake of appearances, as concluded by Pro in round 2: "In short, including uniforms in school allow children to come to understand and expect the demands of appearance that the world makes of professionals." I too, stand by my argument that a free dress code is superior to a uniform dress code in terms of educating the children. Thank you for this debate.