dlowan wrote:So - if it is only the gang thing - since when did a headscarf worn by a Muslim woman look like a gang one? Yarmulkes look like gang things? I covered the dangerous or illegal stuff.
If it is religious - You gonna make Plymouth sistren cut their hair? Their long hair is a religious badge - as are their nerdy dresses - you gonna make them wear cool clothes? And make-up?
What about Sikhs? They gonna have to cut THEIR hair? Ditto - it is a hairy fish hat.
It's not only a gang thing. Dress codes exist for many reasons. I referenced the gang dress as only one facet of why one particular rule (no sports team logos) exist. It has nothing to do with the no headwear rule.
The no headwear rule is IMO a less important one. It's like the no gum rule.
I think what a lot of adults here forget is how many rules there are in school.
There are rules against having anything of value.
There are rules against having anything for communication (cell phones and beepers).
There are rules against having video games and music players.
There are rules against going to the bathroom without permission.
There are rules requiring students to wear an ID pinned on their shirt.
Etc etc.
One of the main goals of the dress code is conformity. Americans don't like that word but american schools try to make kids conform for a reason. The study MUCH better and behave MUCH better with methods such as a dress code or uniforms. Attitude, individuality and expression in America are at a worldwide high. IMO the anti-conform people don't realize how individualistic American culture hurts us.
American schools seem downright oppressive and oddly enough are not nearly as well behaved as schools in natiosn with less repressive rules.
IMO the schools should be much smaller, spend less money of frivolous stuff like cheerleading and stadiums for sport and then they can relax some of the rules as they would have a smaller group with less complexity and impersonal dealings as they would be able to hire more teachers per student.