Public schools, unlike private schools, are meant to cater to students of all classes regardless of their social status. Therefore, these schools are considered to offer a standard level of education affordable to all those who are willing to learn. Thus, public schools should stand out and be exemplary even in their mode of dressing. This is important for the sake of uniformity, moral dignity, and balance of social status (Hamby 31).
It is true that students from public schools cut across the various social classes as both the poor and the rich converge in public schools for education. Allowing students in such schools to dress as per their wish will result in social discrimination amongst students. Students from well off families will tend to dress expensively than those from poor backgrounds. Given that these students are in the same age bracket, those from poor backgrounds may be tempted to match their peers’ dress codes.
As a result, they are more likely to engage in social vices such as stealing or prostitution for them to get money to buy their desired clothes (Damer 33). Wearing uniform will present all students as equal in school, and therefore for public schools to attain and uphold the social balance students should wear uniform.
There is a need to maintain moral dignity in public schools. It is obvious that there exists no standard measurement for skirts. Ladies put on anything from knee lengths such as mini and even micro-long garments in the name of a skirt. This type of dressing exposes much of their body and makes them targets for rape.
The provocative dressing has been rated second behind drug abuse as the major reason for the rise in crimes of rape. Furthermore, no male teacher would be comfortable in class at the continuous sight of provocatively dressed females. Male students can also take advantage and shun decent dressing and opt for baggy and sagging trousers in the name of modern dressing if school uniforms are not put in place (Hamby 47).
Antagonists will argue that students should not put on a uniform as it will not help in attaining social uniformity. It is hard to pick out a student from a well off or poor family when all of them are in school uniform.
Education is the only inheritance a parent can give to a child, and it will be wrong to burden such a parent with clothing costs to make the child match others, yet they are average income earners. Thus, if the rich insist on casual dressing, it simply implies that they can afford something extra beyond the average provided by public schools and are free to seek education elsewhere in private schools (Damer 56).
The point of morality might also raise an argument with antagonists opting for increased security vigilance as well as emphasis on personal morality. However, security also includes the prevention of crime, and decent dressing is a major prevention against rape.
In conclusion, wearing school uniforms in public schools will not only aid in the uniformity of the students but also enhance the safety of the same students. It is possible to single out one as a student when in uniform than having to produce an identity card. It will also make students concentrate more on learning when they consider themselves equal.
Works Cited
Damer, Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. New York, NY: Wadsworth, 2010.Print.
Hamby, Donna. The Philosophy of Anything: Critical Thinking in Context. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2007. Print.