Posted by rr1119 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If they make my kids wear a uniform, I WILL SUE.

Posted by Littlelady8451 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think all kids should wear a uniform. I have 3 in school and it would be alot cheaper for me if they all wear one. On top of the style and all. Kids think they are going to school for a fashion show any way. When every child should be getting a education. Like I try to tell mine who cares what name is on your pants. So I think it would be a good thing for all children to wear one. Hey we all can save money on this.

Posted by carol (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 4:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems like it would reduce peer pressure that some children feel due to not being able to afford brand name clothing.

Posted by johnnie (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 5:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uniforms have been great, although I didn't like the idea at first. My daughter knows what she is wearing everyday of the week. You really only have to purchase 3 uniforms, especially if you wash clothes everyday. You can purchase the pants and shirts at Penney's, Sears, Walmart or most any other stores at a reasonable price.

Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the word "uniforms" in this sense is actually a misnomer. There would be a sense of uniformity, yes, but this is more a case of the students dressing like ladies and gentlemen.

If they were going to have wear an actual uniform, where there was zero difference and it was part of some indoctrination program (as in Hitlers' Nazi program), I would be screaming against it. But in this matter of dressing conservatively and respectfully I agree.

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uniform policies are working great in school systems across the USA. This one will work just as well. rr1119, you and nimnerd must be related. Lawsuits over this issue have been struck down many times. How about sending attorney fees to the humane shelter. The dogs, cats, and one goat would appreciate it more than a slick, slithering lawyer.

Posted by CrimusK8T (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rr1119- What exactly will you attempt to sue for? Im would bet that you say that about a lot of things.
_______________________________________________

The school system in the city we moved from required school uniforms for K-12. Getting kids ready for school was so much simpler when we already knew what they were going to wear everyday.

Plus, Im certain that we spent less money on clothes throughout the school year.

This is so "win-win". When we moved the only thing I missed about our old schools were uniforms.

Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If they make my kids wear uniforms I WILL SUE."

That's hilarious! You might sue, I don't know, but after you throw your money away on that foolishness you can then go and buy uniforms. Or move to another school district someplace.

These are not military uniforms that these youngsters are being required to wear, they are respectful and decent apparel, at least the ones that I have seen are. This should help kids to keep their minds on school work, instead of what each other is wearing. If there is a downside it is far outweighed by the upsides.

Posted by janicestarlingharris (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only problem that I have with the dress code is that we are in the COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM. If one school in the county has to have a dress code ALL SCHOOLS WITHIN THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME DRESS CODE.

Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't necessarily support or oppose school uniforms. However, I do think it foolish to state they will replace saggy pants. Why can't he school enforce a dress code and not allow saggy pants?

But do wonder do we want all of our kids to be the same? They might as well learn now that not everyone will wear the same brand of clothes and etc when they get grown and meet with the real world.

I would be more impressed if the school was as worried about the way kids are allowed to act out at school and whehter they are making the grade or not.
Just food for thought.

Posted by getbizi (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm kinda split on this one. For starters, I believe the schools dont enforce the dress code that is already in place(ex.-saggy pants). It seems to me that this would create an additonal expense by purchasing 3 sets of clothing that will not be worn outside of the school. I'm all for respectful and appropriate dress, but why dont we just enforce the rules we have in place? Since I went to school in another state, I am also curious about the permission of facial hair on students(on males of course). Has this always been allowed?

Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone expects all the kids to BE the same, just dress more or less the same while at school.

Posted by chilly1104 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a parent of kids who wear school uniforms, it is much cheaper and easier to provide and maintain uniforms. They quickly get used to wearing them, and it isn't even an issue.

As a teacher at a school who doesn't wear uniforms, no matter how sternly we enforce dress code, we continue to battle clevage and butt crack! Girls wear shirts so tight that each time they raise their arms, we see way too much belly. Boys walk down the hall with one hand in their pocket just to keep up pants they've bought two sizes too big. Sure, they wear belts, but they buckle them so loosely that their pants are a threat to fall at any moment.

When kids dress like thugs, they act like thugs.

Posted by chilly1104 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, clevage is a typo....should be cleavage.

Posted by njones (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As seen on TV (NBC News), a baggy -pant court case:
"Baggy Pants" are considered free speech and protected under the 1st Am"..scary, huh?
That might be a remote reason why teacher's don't waste time with the issue.
I wear a corporate shirt everyday and love it as it keeps me from wearing my own personal clothing that can get worn out real fast! Seems like the school is offering options, so it's not as though a kid is wearing the exact same outfit every day.
As a question: What are the teachers required to wear?

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seeing cleavege and bellys on girls was one reason I was so excited to go to school as a kid. If girls had not worn skin tight Levi's in the 70s and 80s, I would not have wanted to get up and go to school. 30 years later, I still enjoy the grace of nicely dressed women in the office. But KW has them ALL beat. (had to add that disclaimer for my own life continuence!) Love you Shug!

Back to the story. Uniforms or not, boys and girls will always be distracted by the opposite sex, except for a few nimrods.

Posted by bchapman (Benita Chapman) on May 22, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I completely agree with Chilly! I am a parent of a JHS student already wearing a uniform and a JMS student who has not had to wear uniforms. The uniforms are much more economical to purchase and look much more prideful. As a teacher, I know students who feel inferior to their peers because they cannot afford the "name" clothes. This will eleviate this pressure for students and allow them to focus on their education. As for the question about what teachers will be wearing, it is my understanding that we will be required to either wear a uniform or dress in a professional manner. I commend our administration for taking this step toward the betterment of our students' learning environment. This is one less distraction that teachers will have to face in the classroom. I have spoken with several parents and all of them have been supportive of this policy. For those who oppose, well, you have all summer to decide where you will send your child to school....

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

School uniforms are a cop-out. Instead of enforcing a reasonable dress code, we just make everyone wear the same thing. Like so many other problems inherent in the public school system, instead of dealing with the problems, we legislate a solution - which always, always ends up restricting the rights and freedoms of those who've not done anything wrong and never intended to!

Instead of dealing with trouble makers, we pass more laws, create more restrictions, take away more freedoms! In prison, the first thing they take away from you is your ability to maintain your own identity through your attire. It gives me the warm fuzzies to know that our schools are now doing the same thing!

Posted by dixiechick (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

My son is a student at JHS. I bought his shorts at Aeropostale since they were the only place that carried lengths long enough to fit him (he's 6'5" and insists his shorts hit BELOW his knees). I paid all of $9.99 for them. I have to argue with him on the weekends to wear his REGULAR shorts...not his uniform. So gitbizi, wearing them only during school is a misnomer at my house....he's wearing the shorts this weekend at the Gulf, even though he has a closet full of shorts from AE and Holister. He wears his "uniform" pants to church on Sunday mornings (also bought at Aeropostale for $14.99).

The kids are in school 5 days a week. Let them wear their regular clothes to the mall and when they are hanging out with their friends in the afternoons or weekends. I don't have to argue about how much time he's taking getting ready or what he'll wear in the mornings, just where he left them when he pulled them off. Ahh....the joys of living with a teenager.

Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

REK1138: I normally agree with your opinions, but this time I have to disagree a little bit. I think uniforms ARE a reasonable dress code. Much more reasonable than having to argue about some kid's "freedom of speech" issue, as alluded to by njones. I do agree that it's a cop out, but I think it's a reasonable one.

Posted by chilly1104 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

School uniforms are not a cop out. They are a reasonable solution to a real problem. JMS administrators are working to make the school a more peaceful learning environment. Those who are ready to file law suits and are comparing JMS to the Nazis may want to pack up those fancy little duds and move south. Thorsby just opened up their enrollment for next year.

Posted by njones (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a note:

I personally don't feel dressing like a bum is a freedom of speech, but it looks like a Judge did.
I'm old enough to remember when I had to wear a dress/skirt to school EVERYDAY!this finally changed the winter of 1970 when it was below 0 for an entire week (New Jersey) and the high school relented and let the girls were dress pants,with a jacket or sweater! Funny how they thought our ridiculously short mini-skirts were ok, but DRESS pants were taboo!

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can someone tell me what the new "uniform" consists of?

Posted by njones (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

psy: it's written in the article, itself.

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As TheDude would say DOH! Guess I need to slow down a little bit.

Posted by dixiedreaming (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problems from JHS uniforms hasn't been the policy, but rather the fact there was no retailer to buy from if you child doesn't fall within "normal" size ranges. Extremely petite and plus sized children paid alot more for their uniforms because they could not order them from the school vendor because the school vendor did not accommodate all children's sizes. Also, the policy was later expanded to include certain jackets that wasn't written into the policy. The Board allowed JHS to enforce a jacket policy that was left unwritten. It worked out and was later given over to a wonderful little shop called Polka Dots where a kid could try on the products, order and purchase stock items, pay with debit/credit cards or checks and not have to order and pay cash up front and "guess" at sizes. However, now Polka Dots is out of business. I have to wonder where we'll go now to purchase uniforms. I see absolutely nothing in this write-up that suggests how someone who cannot purchase a Penny's,Walmart and these other stores will purchase their uniforms; accommodations made for families who cannot afford to purchase "uniform" clothing and if monogrammed, who will be authorized to do that this year with no Polka Dots?

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unless the school is going to measure each individual student, they will continue to run into similar problems as far as baggy pants, cleavage, and bellys go. Girls can leave their buttons unbuttoned and buy their shirts/pants a couple of sizes too small and guys can buy pants two sizes too big. The school will still need to enforce the dress code, the only difference is now they will all be wearing similar clothes. They will also continue to have problems with students as far as name brands go unless they make all students order the "low end products" from the above mentioned company.

Posted by MomOf2 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In light of the current economic climate I would hope the officials at JMS make the decision to allow families to purchase the khaki/navy pants/shorts/skirts and white/navy/black polo type shirts wherever the families can afford rather than having to order them through the school. I am in favor of the uniforms, especially having 2 girls, the morning routine will be alot easier but I would like to purchase them at a store of my choosing. If they can work out an arrangement with someone on the monograming and/or uniforms I would certainly hope it is a vendor in Chilton County. Imagine the tax dollars for Chilton County education that were lost on the purchases made at Polka Dots in Calera in the name of Jemison High School.

Posted by chilly1104 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Students are free to buy from whomever they choose. The only thing is they can not have a name brand or emblem on them. Wal-Mart, Target, all department stores, and most high-end stores now carry uniforms without name brands or emblems. They can also be purchased all over the Internet. So, there are options for families of all economic levels. Polka Dots was simply an option for students. No one was ever told they had to order through them.

Posted by KBH1908 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With all the all the problems in our schools today, I can't believe people are going to argue and debate our uniforms. That should be the least of our worries for our kids in school. Especially in lieu of the most recent incident dealing with MySpace, bullying and etc.
By the way, if the teachers and administrators were allowed to discipline then the schools probably wouldn't need such policies as uniforms. There are parents today who do not want their child disciplined at school, however, they are not disciplined at home either. Therefore, we have problems in our schools that were not there 20 years ago.
Until you have walked in the shoes of the administrators in our system, then you shouldn't condemn them. They have so many rules and regulations to follow on top of the everyday duties of running a school. We should be asking what we can do to help and support the schools instead of bashing them.

Posted by chilly1104 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen!

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KBH1908, people are arguing/debating this issue because that's is what these comment sections are for. This article was not about the threats made regarding Jemison High School it is about their school uniforms. I haven't seen anyone "condemn" anyone. What I have seen are people making valid points on both sides of the the school uniform issue.

Posted by CrimusK8T (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think enforcing appropriate dress is easier when all of the kids are wearing the same basic clothing.

Violators are more easily recognizable because they "stand out".

As far as clothing brands....

We bought uniform clothing at many,many different stores Old Navy,Belk,Gap,The Childrens Place,and Wal Mart . Because they are so plain,and our school prohibited logo's it was virtually impossible to determine brands.

(To be perfectly honest,the Wal Mart uniform polos held up much better than the ones we bought at Belk,and Old Navy.)

For those parents that are against uniforms- trust me- they are great! I say this not as a person who "conforms" and "blends in well"- (I dont) but as a parent who enjoys simplicity.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When rules (or laws) evolve from restrictions - things you cannot or are not allowed to do, to permissions - meaning everything is off limits EXCEPT what we tell you is permissible - something is very, very wrong.

As private institutions schools can do what they want - but if we're going to teach children how to function in an orderly society are we really accomplishing anything by teaching them that the only apparent way to circumvent problems or threats to the system is forced conformity? Sure, I'm taking this a lot farther then is probably logical prima facie - but school uniforms are just another step down a long road of ineptness and apathy in both the system and the society that hands their children over to the system.

Posted by bama1870 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't even imagine what would have happened if someone had walked into Mrs.Betty Giles's classroom with their pants hanging down around their knees.

When she started swinging that, "Board of Education" as we called it, You would be trying to get those britches up for protection...... Hahahaha....

Man, she could pick you up off the ground with that thing! Make big ole tears come up in your eyes!!! lol

Posted by jchan (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

POLKA DOTS IS NOT OUT OF BUSINESS. THEY HAVE MOVED TO SOMEONE'S BASEMENT FOR NOW. THEY WILL BE RENTING A BUILDING IN CALERA WHEN THE NEW PUBLIX SHOPPING CENTER IS BUILT.

Posted by getbizi (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's where the problem lies....TRUE STORY! About 3 years ago, at CCHS, school administration called a mother to school because her daughter's shorts were too short. The mother comes to the school, all 300lbs. of her, in even SHORTER shorts! When the parents dont give a crap about little Johnny with earrings, tattoos, and exposing him/herself, the schools must start PARENTING. Uniforms or not, if the school continues to relent on enforcement of any dress code, the code will fail.

Posted by steve42 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"See some of all of you wants nazisum in the county."

I'm an articulate, well-educated college graduate. Apparently, I'm too smart to understand what you wrote here, but I'll try. The use of the words "all" and "you" along with a string of characters that include "n-a-z-i" along with several others that don't really fit seems to be your attempt to back up your claim that only Nazis support school uniforms.

I'm sure the Jewish parents of kids in public school programs in every major city in the US would take exception to that opinion. The African-American parents of kids in those schools would too. In fact, I know a black man who sells school uniforms all over the the area who might disagree with you.

It's been proven out so many times now that it's not opinion or theory... school uniforms cost less than most other articles of clothing that kids would prefer to wear to school. Schools with uniforms have fewer discipline problems. Schools with uniforms actually have higher grade point averages than those with open dress codes.

I don't send my kids to school for them to impress others with how much money I make. Even before they had uniforms, they wore modest, clean, well-fitting clothes to school. I didn't allow them to wear slogan T-shirts, baggy pants, baseball caps, or "bling." The switch to a uniform was a non-issue in our home.

Some parents grew up thinking that if they didn't have Levi's (and they had to be red-tab), Izod, Adidas, Arrow, or whatever. Now they have kids who think they have to wear Tommy, Fubu, or whatever. Vanity appears to breed vanity.

I wore Levi's when I could afford to buy them myself. I bought all my clothes from the time I was 15 on, because my family needed me to take that extra burden off of them. Today, I wear the exact same clothing the article above discusses (minus the shorts and skirts) to work every day. So do my co-workers and my bosses.

We don't point fingers at the folks who bought their golf shirts at Wal-Mart, and we don't complain about the dress code.

You helicopter parents who are so adament to stand up for your kids "rights" to wear whatever they darn-well please to school need to realize that any job that lets you do that is probably not a high-paying job. Get your kids used to living up to somebody else's expectations and maybe they won't be pierced, tattoed and still living in your house when they are 30 years old.

Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

steve42 - Well said. Some can not let go of the conspiracy theories long enough to see the potential good in this.

Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

november - We had our differences of opinion in a previous thread (some of yours I did not get to see but heard about) before it was shut down but I agree wholeheartedly with you this time around.

Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Same here, Phil.
Steve, I think you are absolutely right, and I particularly like your last paragraph. And, the comparison of school uniforms and Nazism by the Nimrod is so completely ridiculous that I really just can't think of a response that would not be immediately deleted from this thread. I wish school uniforms had been used when my kids were in school.

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Phil, Nov, and Steve, I agree with you for the most part. But I will take exception to two comments. The clothes you wear does not matter what type worker or person you are. I care nothing for Tommy, Fubu, or Levis. As a person who works in construction, I see clothing of all types. I see tattos and piercings. I wore an earring as part of my former job. I have a couple of tats too. I wear Wranglers, Carhartt and Redwings. The job only requires long pants, sleeved shirts, and leather boots. And here is where I differ with you Steve, I make $40.00 per hour on my check. The cheapest paid kid from highschool with no walking around sense is paid $23.00 per hour. That doesn't include the $15.00 benefit package. Some guys and gals wear Tommy and Fubu on the job. It's just not my taste. I haven't worn an earring in 16 years. Not my taste. But to make a broad statement as you did about clothing and works shows ignorance, (not a lack of formal education). I, too, am college educated, spent 13 years in military service, and have my tattoos where no one can see them unless I choose to show them. My dad got a few in Germany in the 1950s. He retired comfortable. I got a couple a few years back. We are decent christian people. And my income stays over $100,000.00 per year. If I were wearing a company polo shirt, chances are, like those women and men in our office, I would be paid barely above minimum wage.

Other than that one issue, Steve, I agree with you. And, yes, Nimwit is a little,...let's say,...touched.

Posted by KatherineReece (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have never heard of any school that went with uniforms that had a bad result. I think its a great idea.. but I do agree that if one county school is going to uniforms they all should.

I can tell you I sure would have appreciated it when my son was in school!

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kbh1908, the problem your referring to goes back to the (DHR) as well as materialisim . some parents do have morals and standards but it is against the law to enforce them. as a parent you may not discipline your child with rules and regulations unless you assume the risk of being jailed for child abuse or have your children taken from you. but however, you do have the right as a parent to work all the time and leave the world of alluring devices like ill aimed websites and destructive video games to act in your stead as a parent and teacher to your child. when i was growing up a child could get his rear smacked by the school teacher or the parents and most of the time by both. but now if your child misbehaves you must give them time out while you go purchase them a new game of extreme violence. there is no allowance for good behavior only misbehavior. and we cant understand why children today just seem to trigger and do outrageous things. when the simple fact is most children today don't even know what a parent /child relationship is. they don't know their value or know that they are good because they have no one to guide them they have nothing more than computers, video games and peer pressure to bond with. what a sad world for the children coming up today.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i have said for years that all schools should go to uniforms. for several different reasons. and one is that all kids will be on the same level when they are at school. and no child should have to be embarrassed because of what they do not have. and a lot of the kids that do have it don't really care either, its more their parents way of boasting and using their kids to show it off, the thing is most of these parents don't have nothing they are head over hills in debt. trying to make everyone think they are something they are not. one things for sure, it don't matter how much money i make or what kind of house i live in or what kind of car i drive, when I'm gone no ones going to really remember all that or even care. but they will remember forever how i treated them as a person.

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

steve42, if you could point me in the direction of the data you referred to regarding uniforms curbing discipline problems and failing grades, I would be interested in reading it.

travlr423, blaiming DHR for the lack of discipline found in children is as bad as blaming the school and/or community at large. DHR does not get involved/remain involved in a child's life due to reports of corporal punishment. They do, however, become involved when there is, as defined by law, abuse or neglect whether it be physical or sexual. If you would like to learn more about what constitutes abuse or neglect, I would recommend you visit www.dhr.al.us for more information. If you feel the definitions the legal system has put in place are too harsh, you can always petition the court and challenge them.

American_Nimrod_2, as usual, each rant you post makes you sound less and less educated.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

steve42, say what you want the (DHR) has placed an enormous fear in parents regarding displinary actions they place on their children. all it takes is a phone call from a misbehaved child to the (DHR) and you can find yourself defending false accusations to no end. i have seen it happen right here in this county countless times through the years. and its not just children its elderly people also. i used to know some elderly people between the courts and the (DHR) they were stripped of everything they owned and placed in a nursing home in perry county where they lived until they died. and these people had the provisions that should have enabled them to stay in their home. they had everything but the right to choose. and according to their own ethics removing an elderly person or persons from their home should be a last resort. well being personally involved in this particular matter i can honestly say a great injustice was committed against these people. but these people ultimately wound up with nothing, i mean nothing and died in a nursing home with nothing not even their own dignity. but i find it strange that there are so many situations with children and especially elderly people where they have no money and do not even own the home where they reside, and live in less than acceptable conditions and no one cares.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cont, and to go just a little further with this, lets talk about dead beats who don't pay child support. why is it that the only ones they go after are the ones they figure out will pay to stay out of jail. the ones that would just as soon go to jail as to pay they will not go after them. there are single parents out there that don't receive child support and are owed thousands upon thousands and I'm talking greater than fifty thousand dollars and cant get nothing. but others will go to jail or face the risk over enormously smaller amounts. and as far as your comment about challenging the law why don't you try it sometimes, i did. its hard to challenge the law when the courts make their own laws . any person of interest in any matter before the court should at the least have the right to be heard, but it don't work that way at least not in this county. but that's OK, because one day we will all have to answer to the most high judge that sits on the great throne of judgement and we will all receive our just reward for our deeds on earth. not one shall go unaccounted for, not one , and there will be no explanation, or excuse required only the reward that we are entitled to according to gods law and the choices we made of our own free will.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Phil makes some very good points, but I totally disagree with his recomendation that we get our kids use to the fact of living up to somebody else's expectations. No and No again! What is wong with living up to you own expectations? Don't give other people that much power over you, so much so that you find yourself living up to their expectations! One may be articulate and well-educated and a college graduate ... but knowledge without wisdom is useless!
As for rr1119, you can sue for anything ... collecting is an entirely different matter. So, you're going to pay to file a law suit ... you're going to loose, historically based, because no damage has been imposed, and then you're going to go out and buy the uniform anyway! I'm no mathematician, but can you see where you are loosing on this deal?

Posted by emerick (C Emerick) on May 25, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that the uniforms are nice and cheaper.. But it seems to me that the kids are losing their individuality. The students should be allowed to wear what they want to wear. And if they break the dress code more than once send them to alternative school and be through with it. Another reason the principals wanted the uniforms is to keep kids from being picked on by the kids who are more fortunate. Hate to break it to you, but that is NEVER going to stop. Kids are always going to have their little clicks and are always going to pick on the less fortunate kids and the "nerds" and the "geeks" and all of those kids who have done nothing wrong. And another thing...it is more than pitiful to have the kids looking nice and then have the school look like a tornado has hit it. After being used 60 some odd years I think the students deserve another school.

Posted by psychologistdmp (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

travlr423, if a parent is disciplining their child and not abusing them, they have nothing to worry about. Although DHR cannot prevent false allegations from being made, they can investigate the allegations and, if there is nothing to they allegations, they will close the case. Their case loads are too large to maintain open cases on parents who are not, according to the laws and polocies they adhere to, abusing their children. All allegations made will be investigated because the Department of Human Resource's (DHR) number one priority is the safety of children, not whether or not it is aggrivating to a parent/relative for DHR to be in contact with them.

I don't know anything about the specifics of the adult case you mentioned, but I can state that I have worked closely with DHR and various home health/hospice organizations and know that the laws that govern what DHR can do in adult cases are so much more limiting than in cases where children are involved. It is as you said. DHR becoming caretakers of an adult due to alleged abuse or neglect should always be a last resort. I also know and anyone that has an elderly parent or loved one should know that, according to Medicaid/Medicare guidelines, a person, basically, must be broke before Social Security will begin picking up the tab for nursing home care.

Regarding your comments about the child support system, I have very little experience in this area. However, I can tell you' from that limited experience, I discovered that DHR works extremely hard at getting anyone/everyone who owes child support to pay what they owe. They do not pick and choose which cases to work. If someone requests assistance and they qualify, then DHR assists them as much as they possibly can.

Again, your comments sound like they are coming from someone who is attempting to blame their or society's problems on the very people who are attempting to maintain some sense of order by protecting the vulnerable in our communities like children, the elderly, and the extremely poor. The juvenile court system, juvenile probation system, law enforcement, and DHR attempt to work hand in hand to make our communities as safe as possible and you are attempting to criticize them for doing their jobs?

Posted by Likeitreallymatters (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a student I was so against uniforms it wasn't funny. These days I have a new perspective. As a teacher I waste more time on dress code violations than anything else. Administrators have to deal with it even more. I am looking forward to uniforms, and I never thought I would feel that way. My arguement was always, "Let me express my individuality." Well, there are other ways to express individuality. Express your individuality through writing or song. Join the debate team or play a sport. If clothing is your only way to show your individuality, that's too bad. I guess you'll have to do it on the weekends.
Parents are going to complain alot, but they will eventually see how much easier it is to do unifroms instead of having to buy those expensive name brands that the kids have to have. I know my parents would have loved it if they didn't have to buy my Z Cavaricci pants or that $60 Florida State baseball jersey, or what about that fat Charlotte Hornets Starter Jacket that costed $200. Does that give away my age?