1. Dress codes and quality of education aren't connected
1.1. Uniforms infringe on students freedom of expression, not their behavior and academics (Kelly).
1.1.1. In the article, Mike Kelly notes that "A policy, invoked last September [2006] by the Bayonne public school system, that required students to wear uniforms to school" (Kelly).
1.1.1.1. It means that more schools are beginning to require uniforms for their students.
1.1.2. Mike Kelly states, "What's the legal logic here—that if Bayonne students can gaze at pictures of creepy Nazi kids in a history book they ought to be able to design a creepy button to wear on their school uniforms?" (Kelly).
1.1.2.1. It connects because they have these pictures in history books, which are for their education, but they cannot have one of those pictures on a button, and then wear the button on their school uniform.
1.2. Because having a uniform won't make schoolwork less difficult for some students.
1.3. Parents are already spending their money on stationary that the school cannot buy on their own (Special uniforms).
1.3.1. According to the author of this article, "A parent can spend a minimum of $380 on a junior primary grader's uniform and a maximum of $755 on a top quality uniform of a high school pupil at common outlets" (Special uniforms).
1.3.1.1. This matters because they are spending a money that would be better spent towards their education, not clothing.
1.3.2. The author of this article stated, "Some government schools stand accused of further draining parents' pockets by opting for 'different' school uniforms that are only found at exclusive shops at exorbitant prices" (Special uniforms).
1.3.2.1. This makes me think that schools are doing this just to keep up their schools appearance.
1.4. Because apparently some schools cannot afford to buy stationary for the students.
2. Dress codes and quality of education are connected
2.1. Putting kids in look-alike clothes won't teach individuality, instead it sends an anti-individuality message (Fetzer).
2.1.1. Kent J. Fetzer states, "If matching duds guaranteed better-behaved people, no soldier would ever go absent without leave and no prisoner would ever get into a fight" (Fetzer).
2.1.1.1. It matters because even with uniforms, people will still behave like they always do.
2.1.2. Fetzer explains, "The Daily News reported in April of 2002, more and more public schools are requiring or encouraging students to wear clothing of standardized colors and styles" (Fetzer).
2.1.2.1. It connects because more and more schools were requiring/encouraging dress codes and uniforms.
2.2. Because some schools believe that by controlling the students looks, it'll improve their academics.
2.3. When it looks smart, but is still affordable, is when school wear work best (Self-expression).
2.3.1. The article includes that, "In a 2013 policy document the Department of Education "strongly encourages" school uniform "as it can play a valuable role in contributing to setting an appropriate tone" (Self-expression).
2.3.1.1. This makes me think that they believed the uniforms would improve their behaviors.
2.3.2. They explain in the article that, "Navy is so common partly because it was the cheapest dye back when uniforms were first adopted by 16th-century charity schools for the "fatherless and poor" (Self-expression).
2.3.2.1. This means that the idea of uniforms have been around since the 16th-century, which was over two-thousand years ago.