Several hundred people came to the July 27 Board of Education meeting to voice their opinions on the recently established school uniform policy and to complain about its implementation.
The board, meanwhile, reacting to e-mails, letters and other complaints the school district has received since establishing the policy on June 19, modified some of the provisions of the policy to allow parents to purchase clothing from vendors other than the one issued the uniform contract last month.
On June 19, the Board of Education approved a policy that would require students to wear uniforms by Sept. 26 and would require parents to purchase them from a single vendor, Uniformity.
In a dramatic change of direction, the board voted on July 27 to open the process to other vendors. Instead of being forced to purchase uniforms from Uniformity – the vendor picked by the school administration – parents would be able to purchase pants and clothing from anywhere – provided they were the proper colors – and could get uniform shirts from Herbert Army & Navy Store in Bayonne as well as from Uniformity.
Parents would not be forced to purchase packages, although the discount packages would still be available from Uniformity if parents desired them.
Board members Nina Dobkin, Doreen DiDomenico and James Flynn said the change allowed them to embrace the policy more fully, because each had reservations about the limitations as to where parents could shop.
Board President William Lawson and Schools Superintendent Dr. Patricia McGeehan told the assembled parents that Uniformity had offered its pricing, its 10 percent discount for students that receive free lunch and 250 packages based on the original estimate of 6,500 students making purchases.
“I do not know if they will continue to give us the things they promised now that we have allowed parents to purchase from other places,” McGeehan said.
Those who purchased already may be stuck
As many as 3,000 students had already purchased uniforms prior to the change of policy, to which Lawson really had no answer, except to say that parents should blame the board, not Uniformity.
McGeehan defended the prices and the quality offered by Uniformity, saying that the $89 price for the basic package had an actual retail value of $120 and was the best price the company had ever offered a school district. This was echoed by several parents, who said that the cost had saved hundreds of dollars in the purchase of clothing for school.
Leslie Casbar said the money she saved she was able to put toward an education fund.
Marguerite Baber, whose foundation has donated some packages to families who cannot afford the purchase them, supported the uniform policy, saying this provided additional safety because intruders into a school could be easily be spotted. She also believed uniforms would help improve the learning environment.
“With 3,000 packages already sold, I think it is too late to go back,” she said.
Some parents still not happy
Although the policy changes were seen as a victory for parents who complained about being forced to purchase uniforms from a single vendor, many of those who came to the meeting continued to attack the uniform policy as a whole, claiming the board did not have a legitimate survey of parents to show that most parents were in favor of the policy.
This left some with the impression that the board is imposing a social policy onto the school community without clear support of the parents.
Although some parents and schoolteachers did get up to defend the policy, most of the public comments were critical of aspects of the policy or its implementation.
Two of the most prominent figures in the public session were Councilmen Anthony Chiappone and Gary LaPelusa, who raised concerns about how the policy was being implemented and whether or not bidding laws were being properly followed.
Chiappone said he had come to raise concerns about the financial aspect of the process, saying that the board had entered into a verbal agreement with Uniformity that could be worth more than $1 million.
“If we are going to direct people to purchase uniforms from a single vendor we should have more than a verbal contract,” he said. “We should have something in writing, something that we can point to and say this is what we agreed to.”
Chiappone also said that the initial survey did not lay out the cost, procedures and possible punishment for noncompliance, all things that should have been included in parent approval.
“While I appreciate that people on this board are volunteers and work hard, this should have been looked at in more depth,” he said.
Chiappone and others outlined a host of problems, including additional costs for alterations to pants for children fitting in larger sizes.
LaPelusa also highlighted some of the perceived problems with the uniform policy as well as the apparent lack of thought that went into setting up an informational meeting about the uniforms on an election night in June when many parents could not attend.
One parent, Lynn Burbank, told the board that she had gone back and forth with Uniformity workers over various issues and thanked the board for allowing parents to purchase uniforms from other vendors. But she said she had already spent $385 purchasing uniforms and could not get a refund.
One parent even complained that a Uniformity worker refused to measure a student without the required $40 deposit.
Policy itself questioned
Several parents, however, sharply disagreed and demanded that the board do another poll to assess whether parents actually want the uniform policy.
Board member Flynn spoke eloquently in defense of the policy, and countered legal questions that were raised about the policy, saying that challenges on constitutional grounds had already showed courts backed the school’s right to establish a uniform policy.
The constitutional question had been raised by Laurie Coles and a number of other parents.
While several people had provided information about studies showing that a uniform policy does not accomplish many of the things claimed on its behalf, he believed the uniforms would do away with the discrimination and competition in the schools and allow students to focus on academics.
Even as DiDomenico said that many parents who supported the policy were afraid to speak up because of the critics, a pack of vocal teachers made rude remarks about the critics during the public session discouraging one nearby parent from speaking out against the uniform policy.
Several parents said they were opposed to the uniforms and would not dress their children in uniforms in September, challenging the board to suspend them.
Although the board had approved a policy that allowed school administrators to suspend students for not complying, Assistant Superintendent Robert Craig said the suspension issue was not yet firmly established, and outlined the many steps the schools would take even if in-house suspension was eventually adopted.
While several parents said the board should not punish the children for parents’ decisions to not honor the uniform policy, Flynn said the uniform policy echoes other such school policies already in place, noting that suspension can be the end result of the continued failure of parents to sign a report card.
While Lawson told parents that the amendment to the purchasing plan that did away with a single vendor was a result of listening to and responding to the complaints, Flynn said the board was committed to the uniform policy that would be implemented in September.
(For a full statement from the Board of Education on the change of policy, see the letters to editor section of this paper.)
Al Sullivan can be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com