https://ameblo.jp/lifeisgood7/ ブログの説明を入力します。 ja
Requiring dress code can’t help students pay less attention to their appearances, but on the contrary, it can even encourage students to rebel and make them destructive in school. Even school requires dress code, classes could be still “disrupted by [students] ogling themselves in mirrors, painting their fingernails, combining their hair,” and comparing their customized uniforms as substitute for “comparing designer labels on jackets, caps, and jewelry.” In my middle and high school, where strictly requires uniforms, over half of students violated schools’ policy spending a lot of time by customizing uniforms such as altering the length of skirts short, wearing black socks instead of white, wearing sweaters inside of jackets. Some students simply enjoyed customizing uniforms as fashion, and some students like me expressed frustrations by rebelling against the school policy. Consciously or unconsciously, those students who violated school policy may have tried to refuse society’s distorted sense of virtue: to follow the norm without questioning because the authorities said so. Teachers educate students how to be creative, but forces us what to wear and how many inches your skirt’s length should be. I simply couldn't understand why they didn’t allow me to wear my own thicker socks during snow days and had to suffer from chilblains. I was frustrated when a teacher forced me to dye my hair black as if they didn’t value that I studied much harder than other “good” students and that I usually ranked in top five on exam scores. I lost respect for my favorite math teacher when she had my classmate who has natural and beautiful curly hair go to salon to make it straight. No teachers have explained to me why students should follow such policies. Eventually, those school policies forced many students and I to pay attention to appearance try to rebel or listen to what teachers tell to do specifically. This shows pointless of requiring dress code or having school policy about appearance.

Despite the negative outcome, requiring dress code could benefit students by preventing bullying and teasing that comes from homely outfits and that can affect students’ academic life. One of my classmate never showed up for school after only the first four weeks of the freshman year since he was teased because of dermatological condition appeared on his face and body. In his case, it’s not about his clothing, but other students judged him from his “appearance,” and school should remove reasons of teasing as much as they can. For teenagers, appearance plays a big role in their lives, and they think “it gives them status and earns them respect,” and under such a condition, it’s unfair to be taunted because of the fact that he or his family can’t afford pricey clothings. As Mathabane describes how those environment of open dress code negatively affected to his sisters who were “taunted for their homely outfits,” those children can’t do anything with their financial issue.

Requiring uniforms also benefit student’s families as it can help their finance by saving a lot of money spending for trendy clothes because “the fiercest competition among students is often not over academic achievements, but over who dresses most extensively.” In that situation, many parents tend to be willing to buy whatever these children want, believing that is their love to be tolerant for their children. From these point of view, it’s reasonable to require dress code in school, so that students won’t be affected by unnecessary peer pressures with their appearance and their family won’t need to spend money for unnecessary clothes.

In addition to, dress codes also benefit community as a role of safety function as they can discourage students from criminal activities such as stealing, drugs, or vandalism in the public because of easy recognition. They may also help students whose parents “often watch in dismay and helplessness as their children become involved with gangs and peddle[...]” because communities or the power of recognition supervise them. These benefits can be seen in my home town where successfully kept the community safe, supervising students by communicating closely between schools and neighborhoods. People can identify which school students belong from their uniforms itself or parts of the uniforms such as ribbon color, school bags, or school badges. My school held workshops for students whenever they got phone calls from neighbors reporting some students smoked in parks or when students shoplifted. School didn’t have the workshop a few times after in the first year, because letting students know that someone is watching you, it helped us avoid yielding to the temptation to commit criminal activities in the public.

Considering these benefits, it’s worth trying requiring uniforms in public school especially in areas where hold disparity of wealth, and see what outcomes schools and students can earn. More importantly, school should require policy with convincing reasons when students ask them why. Otherwise, it may causes confusion or rebel among students and make the policy as meaningless such as requiring dress codes in order to make students focus on their mind than appearance.

© 2014 LifeIsGood All Rights Reserved

どんどん話すための瞬間英作文トレーニング (CD BOOK)/ベレ出版

￥1,944
Amazon.co.jp

毎日の英文法　頭の中に「英語のパターン」をつくる/朝日新聞出版

￥価格不明
Amazon.co.jp

CD付 ディズニーの英語 (コレクション5 アナと雪の女王) (CD付書籍)/KADOKAWA/中経出版

￥1,620
Amazon.co.jp

]]> https://ameblo.jp/lifeisgood7/entry-11916721156.html Fri, 29 Aug 2014 02:03:20 +0900
The current MLDA should remain at this moment because not enough study have proven that the lower MLDA more benefit youth’s health than the current age, 21. Many researchers concluded that a higher MLDA positively affect on preventing alcohol related death and injuries among youth. While the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth death each year (Toomey et al 260), back to the 1970s when 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20, at least 50 studies have evaluated that motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens.

Some opponents may question: is that reasonable comparison from such old data? It’s not 1970 any more? Youth's behavior has changed? Maybe, today’s teens are far more sophisticated than the 1970s, and they’re treated less like children and have more responsibilities than before. But this doesn’t make “the 21 restriction seem anachronistic.” (Whelan 258) because teens’ behaviors with alcohol are actually getting worse. According to a 2003 study, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that though fewer high school-age students drink now compared with the late 1970s, the rate of binge drinking among all adults 18 and older have risen. Another study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., encompasses 1993 to 2001, also shows that rates of binge drinking have increased the most (56%) among underage drinkers (Roan 255).

Another argument relates to youths’ right of drinking. Not a few opponents may support Andrew Stuttaford’s argue that the MLDA prohibits youths’ right to drink, and government’s control takes over individual's responsibility(264). From that point of view, the MLDA seem to have been losing the respect no matter it’s lowered or remained. Related to Stuttaford’s argument, Elizabeth M. Whelan compares the right of drinking as same right as flying planes, marrying, voting, paying taxes, taking out loans and risking their lives as members of the U.S. armed forces (258). If she is claiming that youth should have the right of drinking at 18 years old or even lower because they are allowed other rights of adult, the comparison is misleading. Unfortunately, 1,000 of those ”responsible adults” who drank under “individual's responsibility”, arrested for alcohol possession (Carolyn 261), and approximately 1,700 alcohol-related death occurred among college students each year. (Roan 252), which seems to a serious public health issue and make youth looks irresponsible. Their arguments for the right of drinking may make sense in the future when the binge drinking become non issue and they know how to drink moderately.

Those youths’ negative behaviors with alcohols may come from negative aspects that society created. Whelan has a point that “banning drinking by young people makes it a badge of adulthood - a tantalizing forbidden fruit” (258). Prohibited drinking by law or parents, youth may want to rebel more because it’s part of the nature of youth. “We act as if alcohol were a vice, a degenerate habit” (Stuttaford 263), and we tend to focus on blaming the MLDA.

However, the MLDA is not an evil and it may contribute to reduce the alcohol abuse among youth if we take full advantages of the law. The MLDA actually has exceptions in many of the states, allowing underage to drink under certain circumstances. For example, 29 states allow underage drinking at private home, private office, or private property with parental presence and consent. 26 states allow it as religious purposes such as drinking wine during a church ceremony. Parents should take these advantages to educate youth a moderate drinking.

Lastly, instead of arguing for lowering the MLDA, arguing for extending exceptions in more states and making the law more flexible may contribute to reduce this negative effects among youth. If we successfully make youth understand that it is perfectly OK not to drink or that alcohol should be consumed in moderation (259), we can fairly discuss further youth’s right of drinking. While we should come down much harder on alcohol abusers and drunk drivers of all ages (259), we should also keep researching how miner drinking under the MLDA effect on youths’ health, then we can look for the possibility of lowering the MLDA.



Work Cited
Roan, Shari. “Tempest in a Bottle”. In McDonald and Salomone, 252 - 257. The Writers Response 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2004. Print.
“The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: Facts and Fallacies” Toomey, L Traci et al
In Stephen McDonald and William Salomone, 260 - 261.
Whelan, M Elizabeth. “The Perils of Prohibition.” In Stephen McDonald and William Salomone, 257 - 259.


© 2014 LifeIsGood All Rights Reserved

スラスラ話すための瞬間英作文シャッフルトレーニング/ベレ出版

￥1,944
Amazon.co.jp

英語ライティングルールブック　第2版　正しく伝えるための文法・語法・句読法/ディーエイチシー

￥1,728
Amazon.co.jp

]]> https://ameblo.jp/lifeisgood7/entry-11916719840.html Fri, 29 Aug 2014 01:53:27 +0900