California city is latest to redo ‘sexist’ school dress code

The relaxed new dress code at public schools in the small city of Alameda, across the bay from San Francisco, is intentionally specific: Midriff-baring shirts are acceptable attire, so are tank tops with spaghetti straps and other once-banned items such as micro-mini skirts and short shorts.

As students settle into the new school term, gone are restrictions on ripped jeans and hoodies in class. If students want to come to school in pajamas, that’s OK, too.

The new policy amounts to a sweeping reversal of the modern school dress code and makes Alameda the latest school district in the country to adopt a more permissive policy it says is less sexist.

Students who initiated the change say many of the old rules that barred too much skin disproportionately targeted girls, while language calling such attire ‘‘distracting’’ sent the wrong message.

‘‘If someone is wearing a short shirt and you can see her stomach, it’s not her fault that she’s distracting other people,’’ said Henry Mills, 14, an incoming freshman at Alameda High School who worked with a committee of middle school students, and teacher advisers to revise the policy. ‘‘There was language that mainly affected girls, and that wasn’t OK.’’

Dress codes have long been the territory of contention and rebellion, but the reversal in Alameda shows a generational shift that students and teachers say was partly influenced by broader conversations on gender stemming from the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct and a national resurgence of student activism.

Approved by the school board on a trial basis over summer break, the new dress code is stirring back-to-school discussions about what role schools should have in socializing children.

There are sharply critical voices of the new dress code.

Math teacher Marie Hsu said she’s all for equity but that the new rules send an unintentional message that it’s fine, even appropriate, to ‘‘sex it up.’’

SOURCE 





Homeschooling in the UK increases 40% over three years

Across the UK 48,000 children were being home-educated in 2016-17, up from about 34,000 in 2014-15.

Mental health issues and avoiding exclusion are two reasons parents gave for removing children from classrooms.

The government will publish new guidance on the "rights and responsibilities on home education" but councils want more monitoring powers.

They are concerned about the quality of the education homeschooled children receive as well as "safeguarding" issues, such as the ability to properly protect children from abuse or maltreatment.

Dr Carrie Herbert, the founder of a charity for children outside mainstream education, said the rise in homeschooling suggested "something quite tragic about the state of the education system".

She said she was concerned some parents might also feel pressured into home-schooling their children to avoid exclusion or prosecution over poor attendance.

"I'm not sure it's very useful anymore to put 30 children in one classroom with an adult all doing the same thing in the same way at the same time," said Dr Herbert, of The Red Balloon charity.

"We should really be thinking more 21st century and outside the box about this and teaching online in real time can help do this."

While they make up just 0.5% of the school age population for England and Wales, the large rise has prompted calls from councils and education bodies for more statutory monitoring powers of homeschooled children.

There is no legal obligation for children to attend school but the law says they must receive an education.

They can be taught by parents or private tutors and the guidance from both the English and Welsh education departments is that it must be a "suitable education".

'Invisible'

The Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) in England wants parents and carers who home-educate to be obliged to register with their local authority and for inspectors to be able to take action if they find a problem.

Councils should have resources to ensure homeschooled children receive "a good standard of education, delivered in a suitable learning environment and that they are safe," the ADCS said in a report in December 2017.

Safety of pupils was also raised in a study by Norfolk County Council.

Its children's services reported an "unprecedented year-on-year rise" in home-schooling with 1,309 (1.1%) of its school-aged pupils being home taught during the 2016-17 academic year.

"Given that children by the nature of being home-educated can be essentially 'invisible', an inability to make timely and appropriate contact with these families has an inherent risk attached," they said.

In Wales just over 1,800 out of about 430,000 children, about 0.4%, were homeschooled in 2016-17.

In Scotland, just 0.1% of children are home-educated, 969 in total.

The department of education in Northern Ireland saw just 293 pupils being home educated out of a possible 343,082, representing less than 0.1% of the school-aged population in 2017.

SOURCE 






It’s official: Australia spends more than enough on schools

The education debate at the next federal election is shaping up to be about the magnitude of future school funding increases: the Coalition want a big increase, Labor want an even bigger increase, and neither provide any evidence that it’s necessary.

But the latest data highlights the futility of more school spending. The annual OECD Education at a Glance report was released last week, and in breaking news that should shock no one, Australia spends much more on schooling than the OECD average and several top-performing countries.

So… our falling education results on international tests can’t be attributed to not spending enough taxpayer money.

Australia spends a higher dollar amount per student in both primary and secondary than the OECD average, and some top-performing countries like Japan and Finland. Furthermore, Australia spends 3.8% of GDP on school education, higher than the OECD average of 3.5%. And 13.5% of total Australian government expenditure is on education, compared to the OECD average of 11.1%, despite absurd claims to the contrary.

The OECD figures are from 2015, which means they do not take into account the larger recent ‘Gonski funding’ increases in Australia. So they likely understate how much Australia spends compared to the rest of the world. Of course, we can still argue about how school funding can be better distributed or if some schools are underfunded. But our total spending amount is enough.

Another interesting finding of the OECD report is regarding equity of education outcomes by student socioeconomic status, with Australia being at or slightly above the OECD average for equity. This is consistent with previous research findings and undermines the ubiquitous claim that the non-government school sector causes ‘social segregation’. Australia has a relatively high proportion of students attending non-government schools, about 34%, more than double the OECD average of around 16%. And yet this hasn’t led to more student inequality (even if we accept that equity of student academic performance should be the key metric, which is arguable).

Australia can do better. But more spending and blaming non-government schools isn’t the solution.

SOURCE