Emotional Intelligence | Stevehein
Uniforms Cover Only the Edge Of the Problem In Schools
Steve Twomey
July 06, 1998, Monday, Final Edition
What I wore to Catholic high school was not a uniform so much as
a look. Call it Cheap Yacht Club. The rule was slacks (never
jeans), a decent shirt (no T's), a tie (clip-ons okay) and a navy
blazer with a breast-pocket crest. Most of us boys -- and there
were only boys, 1,200 of us -- had only the one blazer and rarely
washed it, so I have vivid memories of jackets worthy of
archaeological study for their Twinkie stains and nasal
discharges, circa 1969.
If a uniform is meant to throw a student's mind off fashion and
onto Latin, I suppose our uniforms did, although I never did
master Latin. If a uniform is intended to help provide an
identification beyond self, our uniforms did that as well,
because fanaticism for our school was total. So, as the uniform
fad seeps from private schools to public, I have little against
making the young sartorially indistinguishable, not even worries
about tampering with their right to personal expression.
But the gimmick is just that.
Uniforms are, in fact, a perfect reflection of our perpetual
quest for "if only" grails, magic wands for what ails
us. If only we allowed uniforms, we hear, public schools would
improve. They would not, at least not commensurate with the hope
invested in them and all the time, attention and newspaper ink
devoted to them.
Fairfax County's School Board, which already allows individual
schools to dabble in uniforms, is now looking for ways to widen
their use, but Fairfax is only one of many systems smitten by the
notion in the wake of nudges from a White House always willing to
go where the nation seems headed.
A couple of years ago, 5,500 secondary school principals were
asked about uniforms and 70 percent thought they'd reduce
violence. The theory is that because kids fight over fashion
accessories, nobody will have anything worth fighting over if
everyone is dressed the same, and nobody will be teased about
outfits.
Uniforms, too, are supposed to save parents the expense of
accommodating styles and help forge an emotional bond with a team
-- the school -- that raises self-esteem. Learning will bloom in
an uplifting atmosphere. All of this stems from a conviction that
the public schools are rife with problems, which they are, but to
resort to uniforms is to tinker at the margins.
My high school was a great school. Something like 95 percent of
my senior class went to college.
* I would say a "great" school would send 95 percent of their graduates out into the world to go traveling, not directly to a university. I would also say a great school would teach them about things which are more important in life than making what are called good grades, things like listening, expressing their feelings, and parenting skills. S. Hein
But that success had nothing to do with our Yacht Club look.
It had everything to do with our parents' making sure we hit the
books every night because they were shelling out big bucks for
our educations. And we weren't big-bucks families. We were
Polish, Italian and Irish clans in the west suburbs of Chicago.
School was a sacrifice, and the mere fact the families were
willing to make it is why most of us succeeded.
No uniform can produce that kind of home commitment. Does anyone
really believe that a kid willing to kill for an Eddie Bauer
jacket will suddenly accept life's proper values, and geometry,
if he and everyone else are dressed alike? That self-esteem and
American history will course through his veins? The families that
seek uniforms are precisely the ones whose kids don't need them
to be civil and attentive. They've learned how to behave at home.
The problem is the kids from the dysfunctional households. They
need a lot more than a blazer could ever give.
If only.
If only we put prayer back in the public schools, we hear,
society would straighten out. I'd like to see a study that links
the absence of school-sponsored prayer with rates of divorce,
abortion and juvenile delinquency. Anybody? Again, the people
desirous of restoring the right to pray openly in classrooms are
the ones whose children are least in need of help. Presumably,
those kids are already praying and have a moral center. It's the
kids who aren't praying and don't have a center who would be
least touched by a few prayers at school.
If only we stopped giving condoms to kids and teaching them the
facts of life, we hear, they wouldn't have sex. Condoms and sex
education encourage them. Well, my high school went a step
further. It banned girls. We still did nothing but think about
sex.
If only we banned (name your class of gun) or restricted its use,
we hear, the killing would stop or slow. My favorite of this ilk
is Montgomery County's recent decision to ban gun shops near
schools, as if anyone has ever marched into a gun shop, bought a
weapon, marched out and started blazing at the kids at the school
across the street. Homicides are down, yes, but gun control is
hardly the reason.
I've long had a fantasy. Let's try all the "if only"
solutions for a two-year period. Put prayer back in the schools,
end sex ed, enact Draconian gun laws, turn off TVs and put every
school kid in a uniform and see what happens.
My prediction? You wouldn't notice.
Many "if only" solutions are harmless and perhaps would
do some good. The former superintendent of schools in Fairfax,
Robert R. Spillane, once said he didn't think much of uniforms,
but if people wanted them, fine.
But let's be honest. Our national negatives won't turn into
positives if only we do this or that. Reducing drug use, broken
homes, out-of-wedlock births, gangs, poor schools and all the
rest takes big money and big effort, not little gestures.
To reach me on the Internet: twomeyswashpost.com
Copyright 1998 The Washington Post
The Washington Post