The "No Child Left Behind" concept continues to elude the policy-makers in Florida. In this case, the policy-makers at Lincoln Academy in Lakeland are continuing to offer more and better opportunities to those children who come from economically advantaged homes.It was recently brought to the attention of several parents (after their children were accepted into the Lincoln Academy program) that they must purchase school uniforms from a specific uniform company. Uniforms are currently a requirement for all elementary schools in Polk County. However, there is no justification for parents to be required to pay exorbitant prices for uniforms because schools such as Lincoln Academy have adopted a specific uniform supplier. Parents of lesser economic means cannot afford to clothe one child, let alone more than one, in these overpriced outfits.The blatant discrimination exists in the fact that parents are told that if they cannot afford to purchase new uniforms from this specific company, they have the option to purchase used uniforms directly from the school.What sense does this make? Anyone would know that a child's self-esteem is affected when forced to wear secondhand clothes. What parent wants their child to begin the school year in an outfit worn by a stranger? Good quality uniforms are available at Wal-Mart, JC Penney and other outlets. These stores offer the same types of uniform clothing at drastically reduced prices.To add insult to injury, Lincoln Academy has proclaimed the right to look inside a child's uniform to verify that it was purchased from the company that they have a contract with. This flies in the face of logic and good sense. If looking at a tag inside a child's clothing is the only way to verify the origin of his or her uniform, clearly there must not be any major difference in a uniform purchased from a department store.Is the origin of a uniform more important than a family's dignity? Why should children from economically challenged homes be forced to wear used clothes when, if given the option to shop for discounted items, they can dress in their own new clothes?It is policies such as the one adopted by Lincoln Academy that allow people in power positions to select which children will receive a quality education. Some proud, poor people would rather not sacrifice their dignity in order to get their children into these magnet schools.
Sandra's Place ~ Favorite recipes, reading list, book reviews, gardening tips and anything else that strikes my fancy.
Jul 24, 2005
The "No Child Left Behind" concept continues to elude the policy-makers in Florida. In this case, the policy-makers at Lincoln Academy in Lakeland are continuing to offer more and better opportunities to those children who come from economically advantaged homes.It was recently brought to the attention of several parents (after their children were accepted into the Lincoln Academy program) that they must purchase school uniforms from a specific uniform company. Uniforms are currently a requirement for all elementary schools in Polk County. However, there is no justification for parents to be required to pay exorbitant prices for uniforms because schools such as Lincoln Academy have adopted a specific uniform supplier. Parents of lesser economic means cannot afford to clothe one child, let alone more than one, in these overpriced outfits.The blatant discrimination exists in the fact that parents are told that if they cannot afford to purchase new uniforms from this specific company, they have the option to purchase used uniforms directly from the school.What sense does this make? Anyone would know that a child's self-esteem is affected when forced to wear secondhand clothes. What parent wants their child to begin the school year in an outfit worn by a stranger? Good quality uniforms are available at Wal-Mart, JC Penney and other outlets. These stores offer the same types of uniform clothing at drastically reduced prices.To add insult to injury, Lincoln Academy has proclaimed the right to look inside a child's uniform to verify that it was purchased from the company that they have a contract with. This flies in the face of logic and good sense. If looking at a tag inside a child's clothing is the only way to verify the origin of his or her uniform, clearly there must not be any major difference in a uniform purchased from a department store.Is the origin of a uniform more important than a family's dignity? Why should children from economically challenged homes be forced to wear used clothes when, if given the option to shop for discounted items, they can dress in their own new clothes?It is policies such as the one adopted by Lincoln Academy that allow people in power positions to select which children will receive a quality education. Some proud, poor people would rather not sacrifice their dignity in order to get their children into these magnet schools.
Jul 17, 2005
Jul 6, 2005
Of course schools should have dress codes to ensure that students are dressed modestly for school, I don't know of any parent who would disagree with that. But schools do NOT have to and have NO Right TO force students to dress like "preppie clones" in dreary khaki and navy in order for them to attend a PUBLIC school. Mandatory school uniforms are nothing more then a feel good policy to placate the fashion mavens who are not content dressing their own children in a preppie style, they have to dictate to everyone else how they should dress their children. Parents have every right to decide what style and color of clothing best suits their families needs and budget without the "Government" aka "School Boards" sticking their nose in what should be a Parental decision.