|
|
The Lakeland School District is comprised of two elementary schools which house grades K-6. We are located in a rural area approximately nine miles south of Scranton. It is agreed to by all that we are blessed to have our elementary schools free of drugs, gangs, violence and serious discipline problems. In fact, at the April P. T. A. meeting at Lakeland Elementary in Scott, Principal William Gianetta likened Lakeland to "a safe cocoon"
We do not even have a full time principal! One man divides his time between the two schools. In his absence, there is not even a vice-principal or other designated person to assume his duties. Obviously, this arrangement would not be sufficient if there were any big problems existing in the schools. There is no need for the children to wear uniforms in our ?safe cocoons?.
Top
One has to wonder why anyone would feel the need to introduce uniforms into a school district such as ours. It should be noted that we already have a dress code that is adhered to without problems. Yet, approximately two years ago, Principal William Gianetta requested that the Lakeland School Board implement uniforms at Lakeland elementary schools.
According to the May 21, 1998 Scranton Tribune, Principal Gianetta attended a PTA program where parents approached him in favor of uniforms. The article states parents were concerned about a gang related incident in a neighboring district. (The incident was never substantiated and gangs are still not a problem in our own or neighboring districts.) This wild rumor apparently spurred Gianetta on to petition the school board to implement uniforms.
The knee jerk response to this fairy tale was to send a survey home with the children to see how parents felt about uniforms. Parents were not informed that this "survey" was indeed a vote on whether they wished to actually have their children wear uniforms to school. Both sides agree they thought the survey was merely gauging their interest on the topic. The Tribune goes on to report "the survey results showed opinions almost split down the middle with a very narrow majority in favor or uniforms."
Outside of this article in the Tribune, the results were never given to the public. One might have expected them to be sent home the same way the surveys were, but they were not. The subject was never broached again. Then, in December of 1999, a motion was quietly passed to implement uniforms in the elementary schools.
Parents were never informed that this issue was even being considered again, yet alone voted on. The administrators and the board members did not send information home informing parents. When the school wants to nag parents about parking regulations, or ask them to bake for bake sales, they send home memos with each and every child. Yet on an important issue like this, they chose to keep parents in the dark. Throughout the last few months, the board and administration has continued to deal with this issue in secret.
Although we elect the School Board Directors to make decisions on our behalf such as hiring teachers and handling money matters, this particular decision is one which would effect the lives of families on a daily basis. It is one which affects each family's budget and lifestyle and the public certainly should have had input prior to the vote. The answer is because they did not want anyone to know because then they would have to deal with resistance. After all, nearly half the district responded negatively to the idea when surveyed.
Other schools in the area when considering implementing uniforms informed the parents well in advance, held fashion shows and forums for discussion of the issue. Lakeland, on the other hand, proceeded without doing so. Yes, it was all done at public meetings, but it was not known then that the Lakeland School Board must be monitored at all times. Again, one would trust that an issue such as uniforms, would be brought to the parents first as it was in Forest City, Valley View, Mount Pocono, Wyoming Valley West, and Wilkes-Barre schools. These schools provided information on what was being considered, held fashion shows and forums to discuss the pros and cons of uniforms. Some formed committees with parents to investigate such measures before they went ahead and passed the measure.
Top
One parent from Lakeland Elementary in Scott wrote a letter to the editor of the Times and was contacted by a parent from the Mayfield Elementary who saw her letter. This step brought outraged parents of both schools together to form a group to protest uniforms.
As unbelievable as it may seem, most of this group itself was not aware that the motion had actually been passed! Even after the measure was passed, the parents were never notified that their children would be in uniform in September. We had to go to the library and pull the back issue of the Tribune/Times article from December to confirm this. Obviously, we found the rest of the parents we approached as ignorant of this policy as we had been. We believe this was done purposely because it left appalled parents at a distinct disadvantage, having to work backwards to undo the measure.
Top
Since Lakeland School District had purposely moved forward on this issue without efforts to inform the public, we were at a distinct disadvantage at this point. The resolution had already been passed and we were trying to get it rescinded. We felt the best path to follow would be to present evidence on why uniforms were not needed at Lakeland. Since the policy itself was not yet created, we thought the board members would consider the information we brought forward with an open mind.
The first step we took was to research the uniform issue itself. We found that uniform success stories were based on anecdotal information only. These myths were perpetuated from various sources such as principals at schools with such programs, to uniform companies who advertise heavily in publications for school board members.
President Clinton even jumped on the bandwagon and touted uniforms as a cure to the ills plaguing public schools in this 1996 State of the Union Address. The Department of Education actually distributed a "Manual on School Uniforms" to every school district in the nation with advice on how to implement a uniform policy. Interestingly enough, this guide advises schools to offer an opt-out policy to families who oppose uniforms in order to avoid legal trouble. It is doubtful that our Board members even know this manual exists because they had no idea what the term opting out even meant.
We find it outrageous that these men have implemented such a huge policy change without doing any homework on it. Directors Parry and Musiel attended a single conference in San Francisco two years ago on uniforms. Musiel alluded to the fact that a "hall was loaded with vendors selling all types of school uniforms" which led us to believe it was sponsored by uniform companies. This is not exactly a neutral source supplying information; these are people trying to sell their wares.
Our research found no hard evidence that uniforms improved education in public schools. The reverse is actually true. A study was conducted by David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockuemore at the University of Notre Dame. This study utilized data supplied by hundreds of schools over a ten year period. They empircially tested the claims made by uniform advocates and found "student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems or attendance. A negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement and moral was found."
Catholic schools are looked upon as shining stars in education and the most visible symbol of these schools is the uniforms the students wear. However, Brunsma and Rocquemore concluded it was not the uniforms that were responsible for better behaved students, but the discipline and social structure supplied at these institutions. This report even compared uniformed Catholic schools to non-uniformed ones and the non-uniform students actually fared a bit higher in academic testing.
This report used data supplied by the very schools who claimed uniforms were responsible for improving their schools. In actuality, the schools implemented stronger discipline policies and limited the movement of the students around buildings which turned out to be responsible for the improvements.
This report was supported by the Journal of Educational Research and the Educational Testing Service Network. It was further supported by the Educational Testing Service Network.
We looked into the Pennsylvania law itself and tried to ascertain why it was actually passed. We were told by a representative from Sen. Bob Mellow's office in Harrisburg that this law was passed with urban areas in mind. She stated that a child was shot in Philadelphia because another student wanted his expensive sneakers. We do not have any children engaging in violence of any sort over clothing in Lakeland Elementary Schools. There is not a great disparity between how the children dress. If that is the concern, a stricter dress code could be implemented rather than an oppressive uniform.
Representative Ed Staback concurred with this. He told a group of concerned parents, who visited him at his office, that the law was not passed with rural districts in mind. He expressed surprise that any of the schools in his district would even consider such a measure. One parent present mentioned other school districts want to have what we've got and Rep. Staback said, "That's exactly right."
Top
At the January, 2000 school board meeting there were about 50 parents from both elementary schools gathered to protest uniforms. One gave a speech explaining how uniforms had to be purchased in addition to normal clothes and how that would hurt her family financially. She went on to say that she often shopped at yard sales and consignment shops and was able to buy clothing that could be used in and out of school at cheaper prices. She explained that competent parents are able to say no when their children pressure them for over priced name brand items.
Other parents pointed out to the board that if a parent could not teach a child to stand up to peer pressure concerning clothing, they surely would fail when it came to drugs, sex and alcohol. Another parent implored the board to stop looking at the clothes of the children and instead to look at their minds.
Unfortunately, our logic and facts fell upon deaf ears. When we asked the board to simply tell us why they wanted to implement uniforms in a district such as ours, they kept repeating they were being "pro-active". They repeated their pro-active mantra whenever someone questioned their motives.
We were told by the board members that they had been looking into uniforms and doing research on them for the past two years. This was indeed difficult to believe. s. If they had even glanced through the "Manual on Uniform Policy" sent to every school district in America by the Dept. of Education they would have known that the Dept. of Education advised parental input from the start, as the success of the program lies in the willingness of the parents to support it. As mentioned earlier, they would be familiar with the term "opting-out".
President Richard Koruszko expressed surprise that there was so much opposition to the policy. The Scranton Times quoted him as say "this was the first negative reaction he had heard of to the plan." That was not entirely true. There was no reaction to the vote in December because no one was aware that it happened. However, half the district responded in a negative fashion when first surveyed in 1998. Could the message be any more crystal clear?
Most schools demand at least a parental support rate of at least 66% to implement any program such as this. Any competent administrator would depend on at least that much parental support to make the program float. Lack of support did not hamper our board members from disregarding the wishes of the people that elected them.
We supplied the board members with copies of the in-depth report by Brunsma and Rockqemore. Although they had a month to research their own case between the January and February board meetings, they chose to remain ignorant. They did not attack the report itself (it was probably too complicated for them to fully comprehend), instead Director Black asked the inane question, "If this report was put out by a Catholic University, how come all the Catholic schools haven't gotten rid of uniforms?? Director Uram chimed in with, "Who are the authors? Anyone could have written this." They were reminded that they were supplied with copies of the ETSN and the Journal of Educational Research commending the report. Director Uram pointed out (in error) "They just published the report, they didn't support it."
These board members had over a month to research uniforms and familiarize themselves with the issue. It is extremely easy to find information on this topic. There is even advice from uniform companies available to debate their side of the issue. How arrogant that they did not even bother to do this. They knew they were going to be challenged on the issue and either were too inept or (more likely) arrogant to do any research.
Parents opposing uniforms have routinely been insulted by the board members. Director Brennan said, "People who are against uniforms are being controlled by their children." In actuality, it is the opposite. We are the parents who have a spine and will tell our children they cannot have certain items when we find they are too expensive. We are able to tell our children certain articles of clothing are inappropriate and should not be worn to school.
Brennan also stated that "he ruled the roost in his home and what he told his children to wear, they wore". This especially angered one parent who shot back, "You can rule the roost in your house but don't come into mine and try to tell me how to dress my children."
We have found since undertaking this fight that our board will resort to unethical behavior when they find themselves cornered. A parent opposed to uniforms wrote a letter questioning the motives behind implementing uniforms and the way the issue was handled by the board and school administrators. She had requested that this letter be read at the meeting which is well within her rights. Even though parents opposed to the issue were told their letters must be signed to even be distributed to members, the board read a letter that was submitted anonymously because it was in support of uniforms.
One parent (who was for uniforms) criticized the board for misleading parents as to the significance of the surveys on uniforms and for the lack of communication leading up to the vote. School Director Jack Brennan agreed that "it is possible the board erred in its decision making. Maybe we went about this in the wrong way, he said" (Maybe???)
Director Tony Carito told the parents at the next meeting "they would either rescind the motion and have another survey or uphold the board?s original decision. What a creative solution that was, they might uphold their original decision . Is there any doubt how this will be decided?
Top
Much to no one?s surprise, a motion to re-survey parents concerning uniforms was defeated 6-2. Showing proof of their ignorance once again, President Koruszko questioned , "Why wouldn't you want to dress your kids in uniform when they'll do better on tests?" Although they had been told over and over for months this was not true and provided with concrete evidence to the contrary, it still had not sunk in. It was clear the board shut us out without even considering a word we said or reading a word of the evidence we provided.
As usual, the when asked if there would be an opt-out policy, the members appeared dazed and confused. Earlier in the year, however, Director Parry told a parent in a phone conversation, that an opt-out policy would take down their program. This showed it was even evident to the board that parental support for this program was lacking. They knew they had to force program on us because not enough people would voluntarily comply with such a thing.
The board would not answer any questions concerning disciplinary actions for non-compliance. In fact all questions regarding the policy were met with "we have not developed the policy yet." They voted on and were vehemently supporting a policy without even knowing what it consisted of. The incompetence of this board is truly amazing. As usual, the board cut us off and refused to answer any more uniform questions.
Top
The Scott P. T. A. sent home fliers to all parents inviting them to their monthly meeting. Uniform selection was listed on the agenda. Principal Gianetta appeared to announce that the uniform would consist of a white golf shirt or a button down dress shirt with collar and ?DARK? navy blue, twill (35% COTTON, 65% POLYESTER ONLY) pants. Girls would additionally be allowed to wear ?DARK? navy blue jumpers and skorts. The shirts would be without logos and all items could be purchased at any store.
The reaction to this announcement was not favorable. Pro uniform parents wondered why they could not purchase khaki colored pants in addition to the ?DARK? navy blue ones. Gianetta said there would be too many different shades of color being worn. He stated, "There would be tan, bone, ecru, khaki, light and dark shades." He went on to point out that "parents would understand that 'DARK' navy blue meant only the shade of blue which is almost black." It is still not clear to the average parent why having only one boring shade worn by hundreds of children is a priority to this man.
The anti-uniform people asked why uniforms were even necessary in our elementary schools. Mr. Gianetta answered, "Will the children score higher on tests? No. Will discipline improve? No, I don't think so." He went on to make his famous analogy that "Lakeland schools are like a safe cocoon." He finally said, "I just feel this is a positive thing." That is the answer to what motivates this person to keep going with a clearly unpopular plan? Lame at best. The person who is listed on the original resolution as being the one who requested uniforms in the schools doesn?t even have a valid reason for implementing them.
The uniform issue began to take up so much time that the P. T. A. president requested they finish the conversation at another time as they had other matters on their agenda to discuss. Gianetta informed everyone he would be available to discuss the uniform on a one to one basis in his office. This did not go over well. Parents felt the issue should be dealt with in public to stop rumors from being passed around. Also, they wanted everyone being told the same thing at the same time.
The principal resisted such a meeting. School board Director Ed Lubash stated that if Mr. Gianetta would name the place and date, the school board would be there. (He is the only member that opposes uniforms. He was not part of the board when the original resolution was passed.) Gianetta continued to resist pressure to have such a public forum. As pointed out from the start, parental input is avoided at all times.
T he next day, Mr. Gianetta approached two of the more vocal parents of the opposition group. He stated, "You got your meeting. It will be held on May 3rd, tell your friends." Such a statement implied that the public meeting that parents had begged for the night before was a reality.
Not really. Four hours later, the Mayfield Elementary P. T. A. held a 'Reflections' award ceremony. After awards were handed out, Mr.Gianetta announced there would be a meeting to discuss uniform colors on May 3rd. He went on to say that the president of each P. T. A. would pick a panel of her choice to discuss the color scheme of the new uniforms. All were welcome to attend the meeting, but only the select few picked by the presidents would be permitted to speak. In a mere four hours, the rules had once again changed. There was no input from audience members at all because this was merely an announcement of a meeting at an awards ceremony.
As usual, the majority of parents were kept in the dark about the meeting. The "announcement" took place in front of approximately 20 parents and was never communicated to the other parents in any way.
This meeting took place the night before the Easter break and was sparsely attended. The parents at Scott had been promised "their meeting" and took the principal at his word. There was no need to discuss uniforms because they were going to be addressed in a couple weeks at a meeting for just that purpose. Six parents attended seeking only to find out the time and place of the meeting.
One parent asked just that question. President Koruszko evaded the question by saying it was a public work session and information pertaining to it would be published in the newspaper. He went on to say the parents had an opportunity to state their views at their April P. T. A. meetings and such input would be relayed to the board by their representatives.
The parent noted that Mayfield parents missed this opportunity because they had an award ceremony instead of their regular P. T. A. meeting. At this point, Principal Gianetta angrily said, "They did too have a P. T. A. meeting. It was after the award ceremony and before refreshments." He purposely misled the board into thinking Mayfield parents had a chance to take part in the selection of uniforms. There had been no input whatsoever by audience members because it was merely an announcement of a future meeting during an awards ceremony. It would have been incredibly rude to turn the children's night into a heated discussion concerning uniforms.
Even though parents had questioned the board directly as to why Mr. Gianetta had requested uniforms in the district, he had never spoken a word about it. Even when a letter was read characterizing the administration as unethical, he had remained mute. The one time he chose to speak out was to lie and say there was a meeting when there wasn't one. It can only be surmised that he told the board the parents had a chance to speak and now had to cover his tracks.
Superintendent Ghingerelli angrily stepped in and said the meeting was to discuss color and color only. He said the uniforms would not be changed in any shape, matter or form. This turned out to be another untruth.
Top
Per the demands of Mr. Gianetta, a panel of 10 P. T. A. members (5 from each school) were picked to attend the work session to discuss colors only. It was not made clear why Gianetta discriminated against non-P. T. A. members and limited participation to the P. T. A. members. The surveys of 5-98 had asked for parent volunteers to develop a uniform, but these parents were shut out of discussions, unless they happened to be P. T. A. members.
In January a parent (who was a P. T. A. member) had asked a board member why uniform discussions were limited to P. T. A. members. She was told that P. T. A. members were the parents who cared the most about their children. Apparently this board member automatically discounted the efforts of parents who volunteered countless hours as coaches and scout leaders, along with those who chose to spend their evenings helping their children with their homework instead of attending P. T. A. meetings.
Mr. Gianetta started off the meeting with a little speech in which he reiterated that this meeting was to discuss color and color only of the uniforms. He specifically said that style, etc. would not be addressed. He warned, however, that everyone would not leave happy because "that only happened in Disneyland and this wasn?t Disneyland." He then introduced Ms. Alexis Smerekel, Principal of John Marshal Elementary in Scranton. Ms. Smerekel proceeded to state her opinion on what kind of dress code the students at Lakeland should implement.
The Scott Elementary P. T. A. had invited all parents in the school to their meeting to vote on uniforms. They decided by a vote, that they wanted different color golf shirts. They unanimously voted against logos and buying the uniforms from one source. Unfortunately, their P. T. A. representatives sold them out. They voted instead for shirts with logos. The board decided parents should only purchase "Dickie" brand from Star Uniform on the advice of Alexis Smelecky. She does not even have children and has no qualifications as clothing expert, yet she decided what brand our children would wear and where it could be purchased.
One parent questioned the necessity of logos on the shirts. She pointed out that logos would drive up the cost of the shirts. There was a discussion of the exact amount the logos would actually add to the cost. Gianetta stated that he was quoted, as principal representing 950 students, an extra charge of .75 per shirt to add the embroidered logo. (This price actually varies depending on how many letters are embroidered and could actually end up costing more per shirt than .75.) The parent questioned the need to inflate the price with logos, pointing out that even .75 per item is a lot for someone on a tight budget.
The discussion was obviously not limited to just colors. Therefore, a parent took the opportunity to ask if there would be an opt-out clause in the policy. The board members were apparently dumbstruck by this, even though the question had been raised for the past few months.
She explained that providing an opt-out would not destroy the uniform policy, as many children would not want to dress differently than their peers, even if given the opportunity. With his usually fine grasp of the conversation taking place, Mr. Black replied that his father laid down the law and if he didn?t like his rules, he was told to get out at 18. We are not fully sure why he chose to share that with us when we were discussing an opt-out provision.
The parent went on to ask them if they were not elected officials. They all nodded in the affirmative. She then asked them if they were not, therefore, a government entity. They nodded yes once again. She then summed up her position by saying she did not want the government dressing her children.
Mr. Ghingerelli tried to defuse the situation by pointing out that we were there to discuss colors only, although it was decided at the very same meeting what brand could be purchased and from whom and to have logos as part of the mandatory uniform.
There was discussion towards the end of the meeting as to how to notify the parents. A board member suggested mailing the policy to each and every parent. Mr. Gianetta argued that it should be printed in the newspaper, instead. It has been repeatedly pointed out that many parents in the district do not read the newspaper and that they should have been directly contacted regarding uniforms. After being berated time and time again for not communicating properly with the parents, Mr. Gianetta still tried to avoid it. Director Uram, finally snapped at Gianetta to "just mail them home" and the decision was made. The children are in their last week of school at this point and not a word has been sent home describing the uniform policy.
Top
In a sidebar motion, the Lakeland School Board voted 8-1 to adopt the attached uniform policy. When members of the public asked to see the policy, they were told they would be provided with them after the meeting. They were told that Mr. Gianetta had just finished the policy prior to that night?s meeting and there had been no time to make copies. A secretary was dispatched to make some copies.
It was not clear why it took 14 days to have this policy written up. It is rather simple and all aspects were decided on at the May 3rd meeting. We were not told if the board members had a chance to examine the policy itself before voting or if they just voted out of blind trust.
One member, Director Lubash voted no. He told a parent in a conversation a couple of weeks later that he voted no because he was not provided with a single reason why Lakeland needed uniforms. This same director had told a parent in a phone conversation 2 months prior that there were no dress code problems in the Lakeland School District. He stated that he "walked around the high school from time to time and there might be one or two individuals at most, who abused the dress code. He stated that these should be handled on an individual basis.
Upon hearing the uniforms could only be purchased from one source, a parent questioned the board as to why they would take away her right to shop at yard sales and consignment shops or where ever she could find the best price. As usual, they did not reply.
A parent asked if logos would drive up the cost of the uniform shirts. President Koruszko stated he did not know how much the logos would cost . When the parent asked him if the shirt would be cheaper without one, he again said he did not know because they got one price which included the logo. Everyone in the room knew this was not true, as it directly conflicts with the information provided by Mr. Gianetta at the May 3rd work session where he stated they cost an additional .75 per shirt. President Koruszko was present at the May 3rd work session. It is not clear how he missed this portion of the meeting.
(In a phone conversation a few days later, a parent asked Director Carito how the logos would help the poor and he admitted they would not. Mr. Carito advised the parent to take the matter to court if he did not agree with it. It is not clear why he is so eager to spend tax payer?s money on a court case to settle this matter, instead of amicably and without expense.)
As usual, President Koruszko stated that no more uniform questions could be asked at the meeting even though there were more parents with their hands raised. Except for one meeting when Channel 16 was present and taping, the board severely limited the time spent on the uniform issue. Although they are elected officials, they do not find it necessary to listen to the opinions of those they are representing. Although it is obvious that we can (and will) vote them out of office, by that time the damage will have been done. We are trying to stop this affront to American freedom before it goes any further.
Top
A written request was sent registered mail to the board requesting the surveys from 1998, along with any records showing the disciplinary actions taken for dress code violations. It was requested that the board prepare their answer in writing for the next board meeting. All items requested should have been furnished under the Sunshine Law. However, Director Parry stated that the board decided not to prepare an answer because they had answered the questions in person at past meetings. The request for the surveys was ignored completely.
A parent then asked what the discipline policy would be concerning uniforms. Director Parry chose to address this particular parent. He rudely inquired as to whether she had a hearing problem since her question had been answered countless times before by the board. Superintendent Ghingerelli and Principal Gianetta then admitted that they were still working on the discipline policy. Apparently Mr. Parry was the one with the hearing problem. He was hearing answers to the discipline question which was asked countless times before, even though the problem was not yet resolved.
President Koruszko then stated it would be a verbal warning first, a written warning second, a suspension third. His answer did not please the superintendent and principal who quickly silenced him.
A parent questioned why Star Uniform was picked as a uniform supplier, when we have K-9 Coral and Roselle?s selling uniforms and paying taxes to our district. Principal Gianetta and Director Carito agreed that they were picked to kick off the program because they were the only ones that could guarantee stock for the start of school in September. This is not true. The owner of Roselle's was grilled by Mr. Gianetta at a P. T. A. presentation he made. He assured Mr. Gianetta that he could indeed procure enough uniforms to provide for each and every student in the district. The board did decide that parents could purchase uniforms at the location of their choice and a letter from Mr. Gianetta did inform parents of this.
Top
Once again, a parent requested in writing, records showing how many dress code violations were recorded, along with the surveys. Principal Gianetta told her he never received her fax. She informed him she called the office that morning and was assured that he did. He then said she would have to check with Superintendent Ghingerelli. Ghingerelli said he would have to ask Board President Koruszko. Ghingerelli reported the next day that Koruszko said to check with Solicitor John Krisa. Attorney Krisa called the parent and told her she would get the information but to wait a few days. In the meantime, Superintendent Ghingerelli informed the parent that Krisa had said she absolutely could not have the information. According to the Sunshine Law, a certain amount of time must be given to the school to prepare the information requested. At this writing, the school has one more day to turn over the material.
There was no board meeting held in July. However, Star Uniform held a sale at the Scott Elementary on July 7th and at Mayfield on July 8th. There was a peaceful protest held at both locations by pro-choice parents who wish to opt-out of the uniform policy. They distributed literature informing parents where they could purchase uniforms at a cheaper price.
Star Uniform sold nine pieces of clothing at the two elementary schools. Out of those nine, five were not "Dickie" brand. Therefore, even if a parent intended to comply with the policy, he was sold the wrong articles of clothing. Principal Gianetta mailed out yet another letter instructing parents of the error and telling them to "feel free to exchange the items for "Dickie" brand".
One of the most disturbing problems with the uniform policy is a lack of any type of assistance to help underprivileged people. The original resolution states that a uniform pilot program will be at no cost to the district. At John Marshall, Principal Smereky informed us that parents are charged an extra .50 per item which Star Uniform puts in an escrow account. The people in the district that are entitled to a free lunch or partially subsidized lunch can then purchase uniforms at a 70% or 40% discount.
Since our purchases are not limited to Star Uniform this type of program is not possible. The school is telling people they will assist them, yet at this time, 6 weeks before school, there is none. 39% of Mayfield and 23% of Scott would qualify for such assistance so it is imperative that it be made available. This is another example of the board acting without studying the issue or having a plan.
On July 25th, an Opt-out Rally will be held at Keklak?s Grove in Jermyn. The purpose is to gather parents together to discuss respectfully deciding to opt-out of the uniform policy for philosophical reasons. Most parents have been kept in the dark throughout the year concerning the uniform policy. We will be supplying them with actual facts and figures which the board has not.
We have presented empirical research that shows that uniforms do not improve schools, in fact they negatively impact them. Still, some continue to say they should be implemented to provide an "even playing field". Unfortunately, uniforms do little to mask the economic background of the wearer. Some children will have more toys, more colored pencils, better accessories. The children socialize outside of school and it is apparent to them who has more money.
This is a fact of life in a democratic society. It is not a bad thing. Parents should be teaching their children to value individuals on their deeds and character instead of their clothing. Instead of trying to mask our differences, we should be celebrating and enjoying them. Putting a child in a uniform does not solve any problems he might have due to lack of money. It is like painting a car that needs a new engine.
Those of us involved in the fight against uniforms would rather be spending our time addressing educational issues. However, we feel it is important to stop forcing such an intrusive policy on us. Remember, Lakeland is a "safe cocoon" according to Mr. Gianetta. Even if uniforms were to solve the serious problems found in some schools today, such problems are absent at Lakeland. We feel blessed in this respect and do not wish to implement solutions to problems that don't even exist. On 12/6 the Schoolboard approved a motion that said: It is recommended that a uniform dress policy be adopted for the Lakeland Jr.-Sr. High School with the 2001-2002 school year. It is also recommended that a committee of students, faculty, parents and community members be formed to develop such Policy, with final determination to be made by the Lakeland School Board.? Per the business manager, it is likely that from the list of volunteers made at the meeting, the board will pick 2 parents, 2 students, and 2 board members to meet and select what the uniform will look like. They will then say they had input from parents and students just like they did at the elementary.
Top
Top
