Posted by
Infidel Queen on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:55:27 AM
More people trying to speak for me and ruin my budget
(Aug.
6) - As the new school year approaches, more schools are requiring
students to wear uniforms or otherwise restricting what they may wear -
and parents are objecting.
Their complaint: The policies trample students' right of expression and
parents' right to raise children without government interference, says
Vickie Crager, founder of Asserting Parental Rights - it's Our Duty, a
parents rights group that opposes school uniforms.
Are you
kidding me? There's actually a group that opposes school uniforms.
They're using the age old excuse of oppressing freedom of expression
because their kids aren't allowed to wear Sean John and Baby Gap.
I'll
wager money that these are the "cool parents" who have the plasma
screen tv that all the kids watch 'My Super Sweet 16' on.
Parents
Laura and Scott Bell filed suit over an Anderson, Ind., uniform plan
that will begin when students return to school Aug. 20. A hearing was
scheduled today in federal court in Indianapolis.
The Anderson policy requires black, navy or khaki pants or skirts and a solid-color shirt with a collar.
Oh, God forbid.
Khaki pants and a
collared shirt. The horror. The oppression. Gasp, shock, awe.
"As a parent, we felt our rights were being violated," says Laura Bell. They have five children, ages 5 to 17.
Give me a flipping break. You have
five
school age kids that you have to buy clothes for and you're actually
bitching about uniforms? You're going to save hundreds of dollars on
clothes! I spent a total of $45 on school uniforms to last for the
whole week on my daughter. As opposed to paying $10 - $15 for each pair
of shorts/pants/skirt/dresses, and $10 - $20 for each shirt, depending
on which "cool" ones she wants. Plus, what is the point of buying
expensive clothes that are going to get dirt, mud, food, paint, and God
only knows what else on them. Think, people!
The
Bells' suit makes two claims: that the uniform requirement violates
their children's constitutional right of free expression and that it
violates the guarantee of a free public education. The Bells would have
to pay $641 for five sets of pants and shirts required by the policy,
Laura Bell says.
Violates free education? Do you send your
kids to school naked, Mr. and Mrs. Bell? No? Ok, then. You have to buy
school clothes anyways. Quit your bitching and suck it up.
Others
who object to uniforms and strict dress codes make their case outside
the courtroom. Nashville parents created Metro Parents Against Standard
School Attire after the school board announced plans for uniforms this
spring.
"We perceive
it as an educational fad," says Ashley Crownover, the group's
spokeswoman. She says research does not support claims that uniforms
increase safety or improve academic performance.
An "educational fad"? Any fad that saves me money is a fad I like, thanks very much.
Some members of the group are considering suing or encouraging their
children not to wear uniforms when school starts Aug. 13, Crownover
says.
"We expect our
school systems to do a lot, but this is taking it too far," she says.
"That's my job - to help my children learn what is and isn't
appropriate clothing."
No kidding. I thought maybe the
school could teach my kids how to distinguish between good and evil
while they're at it. There are these wonderful things called weekends
that you can utilize to teach proper attire rules.
Honestly,
how many parents out there are willing to fight with their kids every
day over what they are going to wear? Isn't it easier with uniforms?