The Perils of Common Sense

In local Nashville politics, there’s a controversy over the attempt of the Metro school board to mandate standard school attire for children in all Metro Public Schools.  There are a number of elements to the battle that are interesting—most notably the articulate public statements made by several area students and the vocal reaction of the local blogosphere.  Indeed, those interested can find a wonderful articulation/summary of the arguments in the midst of an original statement by NashvilleIsTalking’s Brittney Gilbert (I strongly encourage you to read this if you have any interest in pubic education, school attire, or local controversies). 

There’s been enough said about the topic itself that I have little to add.  However, there’s a lesson to be drawn from the arguments in general that I think should give us all pause.  It’s a lesson we’ve all learned before, a mistake we’ve promised not to make again:  the pitfalls of common sense.  In short: when one looks at the arguments involved in this case, a great number of people—especially those supporting standard school attire (think school uniforms)—have taken a position based on common sense rather than on research.  In doing so, they ultimately support a position that may have little to do with their ultimate goals.

On this very issue, I can serve as an example.  When my son, who is now a Junior in the Metro Schools, was a student in the fourth grade, there was some discussion of implementing uniforms at his individual school.  While my son predictably protested, I liked the idea on the grounds that: (A) it would encourage students to behave and tone down; (B) it would level class distinctions in clothing; (C) it would add a sense of seriousness to educational proceedings.  Why these arguments came so readily to me, I don’t know.  I do know that I simply asserted them and did very little research to see if I was right.  Turns out, as Brittney and local blogger/columnist/Vandy Professor Bruce Barry have shown, the case isn’t clear at all.  A little research goes a long way.

The lessons we draw from this shouldn’t end at the local level of this controversy in this city.  Rather, this case can serve as a reminder to all of us that while common sense is often a valuable guide to our decisions, reliance on it alone encourages us to overlook additional options and dead-ends.  In short, we err when we, as individuals, make participation too easy.  If we vote, or answer surveys, or take public action, without the least reflection on common sense, we’re simply asking others to make our decisions for us.

Comments

[Janet]

I have had both kids in uniforms and kids without, boys and girl. All education, status, and culture issues aside, there are huge mom benefits in uniforms. And really, that's what matters.

1. Not having to find things that match before coffee.
2. No dramatic fashion crises with kids trying to decide what to wear in the morning.
3. Arguments over what's appropriate are relegated to non-morning hours when I can think better.
4. Shopping is dramatically streamlined and items can be bought without kids present. (Families with more than one kid will truly appreciate this.)
5. The uniforms don't get worn on weekends and, at least when the kids were little, exhanged for play clothes as soon as they got home from school. Keeping them segregated made them a lot easier to keep up with.
6. They can be passed along to siblings and cousins regardless of the next kid's personal style.
7. Whatever anyone else's experience, I think uniforms are a bargain. A couple of hand-me-down jumpers and blouses for the year is hard to beat.

I'm all for wardrobe personal expression as soon as they understand how the washer works.

[Daniel]

great gawd. that's an amazing summary that brittney put together. bang bang bang. dead.

i'm all over the map on uniforms, and would generally tend to agree with your original thoughts, john. wearing a uniform (along with uniform-cut hair, etc.) was actually a great experience for me, because it meant that people dealt with how I acted instead of how I looked, and there weren't any of those "poor country hippie boy" clues to pick up from the way I dressed. So I originally thought a uniform policy was fine for schools.

I eventually changed my opinion -- not because I think uniforms are a terrible idea -- but because whatever marginal advantages they might offer are completely, utterly overwhelmed by the local school district's bureaucratic tendency to turn trivial matters into regulatory raison d'etres. You get uniforms so you don't have to waste energy, thought and money on dressing your kid appropriately for school, but bureaucrats turn minor uniform infractions into disciplinary cases. Well, screw that. They're kids. That they're dressed at all some mornings is a miracle.

It doesn't always turn out this way, but I'm generally comfortable with the notion that less is more when it comes to regulation. When I consider supporting a new rule now, it's because I think (rightly or wrongly) that the case on its behalf is more than just marginally superior to the status quo. If not, why bother? Why give the REMFs any additional power whatsoever?