The uniform rules are clearly more lax at Warrnambool College. The students wear whatever jacket they want, and their shoes are all colourful sneakers, which I love. The all even seem to be wearing the wrong pants, as long as they are an appropriate colour. The teachers pay hardly any attention to what they are wearing, and I love it.
I was told that an area around the school is known for being really low socioeconomically, and I would not have known this by looking at the students. I see a benefit in the uniforms, but I also think the same could be said in Canadian public schools. My practicum school had students from really wealthy families, as well as students from households who struggled to get by. You could not tell who was whom, and they all intermingled beautifully. Are uniforms really necessary for achieving this king of equality? Or am I just missing subtle cues, since I am not from the same generation as them?
Brauer (the previous school) is considered a much more academic school and they are clearly stricter with students in various ways, including cracking down more on uniforms. The students at Brauer, for the most part I think, are being taught more that they are headed for success. But cracking down on uniforms to me means conformity more than anything. I think they are passing on the message to their students that conformity is necessary for success. And it truly does in some ways - we need to conform to laws and workplace rules and standards. But is conformity always a good thing? Should they be doing more overall to encourage their students to think and explore for themselves? Can they do that while still being so strict on uniforms? And would it be worth it to try, or should the uniforms be scrapped in exchange for a greater load on personal responsibility?
I was told that an area around the school is known for being really low socioeconomically, and I would not have known this by looking at the students. I see a benefit in the uniforms, but I also think the same could be said in Canadian public schools. My practicum school had students from really wealthy families, as well as students from households who struggled to get by. You could not tell who was whom, and they all intermingled beautifully. Are uniforms really necessary for achieving this king of equality? Or am I just missing subtle cues, since I am not from the same generation as them?
Brauer (the previous school) is considered a much more academic school and they are clearly stricter with students in various ways, including cracking down more on uniforms. The students at Brauer, for the most part I think, are being taught more that they are headed for success. But cracking down on uniforms to me means conformity more than anything. I think they are passing on the message to their students that conformity is necessary for success. And it truly does in some ways - we need to conform to laws and workplace rules and standards. But is conformity always a good thing? Should they be doing more overall to encourage their students to think and explore for themselves? Can they do that while still being so strict on uniforms? And would it be worth it to try, or should the uniforms be scrapped in exchange for a greater load on personal responsibility?
No comments:
Post a Comment