Paula+Hocker

= =

Users' Guide to Adopting a School Uniform Policy
The decision whether to adopt a uniform policy is made by states, local school districts, and schools. For uniforms to be a success, as with all other school initiatives, parents must be involved. The following information is provided to assist parents, teachers, and school leaders in determining whether to adopt a school uniform policy. Parental support of a uniform policy is critical for success. Indeed, the strongest push for school uniforms in recent years has come from parent groups who want better discipline in their children's schools. Parent groups have actively lobbied schools to create uniform policies and have often led school task forces that have drawn up uniform guidelines. Many schools that have successfully created a uniform policy survey parents first to gauge support for school uniform requirements and then seek parental input in designing the uniform. Parent support is also essential in encouraging students to wear the uniform. A school uniform policy must accommodate students whose religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a uniform requirement. As U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley stated in **Religious Expression in Public Schools**, a guide he sent to superintendents throughout the nation on August 10, 1995: > Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather are subject to the same rules as generally apply to comparable messages. When wearing particular attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, during the school day is part of students' religious practice, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act schools generally may not prohibit the wearing of such items. A uniform policy may not prohibit students from wearing or displaying expressive items -- for example, a button that supports a political candidate - so long as such items do not independently contribute to disruption by substantially interfering with discipline or with the rights of others. Thus, for example, a uniform policy may prohibit students from wearing a button bearing a gang insignia. A uniform policy may also prohibit items that undermine the integrity of the uniform, notwithstanding their expressive nature, such as a sweatshirt that bears a political message but also covers or replaces the type of shirt required by the uniform policy. Some schools have adopted wholly voluntary school uniform policies which permit students freely to choose whether and under what circumstances they will wear the school uniform. Alternatively, some schools have determined that it is both warranted and more effective to adopt a mandatory uniform policy. In most cases, school districts with mandatory policies allow students, normally with parental consent, to "opt out" of the school uniform requirements. Some schools have determined, however, that a mandatory policy with no "opt out" provision is necessary to address a disruptive atmosphere. A Phoenix, Arizona school, for example, adopted a mandatory policy requiring students to wear school uniforms, or in the alternative attend another public school. That Phoenix school uniform policy was recently upheld by a state trial court in Arizona. Note that in the absence of a finding that disruption of the learning environment has reached a point that other lesser measures have been or would be ineffective, a mandatory school uniform policy without an "opt out" provision could be vulnerable to legal challenge. Schools should not impose a form of expression on students by requiring them to wear uniforms bearing a substantive message, such as a political message. In many cases, school uniforms are less expensive than the clothing that students typically wear to school. Nonetheless, the cost of purchasing a uniform may be a burden on some families. School districts with uniform policies should make provisions for students whose families are unable to afford uniforms. Many have done so. Examples of the types of assistance include: (a) the school district provides uniforms to students who cannot afford to purchase them; (b) community and business leaders provide uniforms or contribute financial support for uniforms; (c) school parents work together to make uniforms available for economically disadvantaged students; and (d) used uniforms from graduates are made available to incoming students. Uniforms by themselves cannot solve all of the problems of school discipline, but they can be one positive contributing factor to discipline and safety. Other initiatives that many schools have used in conjunction with uniforms to address specific problems in their community include aggressive truancy reduction initiatives, drug prevention efforts, student-athlete drug testing, community efforts to limit gangs, a zero tolerance policy for weapons, character education classes, and conflict resolution programs. Working with parents, teachers, students, and principals can make a uniform policy part of a strong overall safety program, one that is broadly supported in the community.
 * 1) Get parents involved from the beginning
 * 1) Protect students' religious expression
 * 1) Protect students' other rights of expression
 * 1) Determine whether to have a voluntary or mandatory school uniform policy
 * 1) When a mandatory school uniform policy is adopted, determine whether to have an "opt out" provision
 * 1) Do not require students to wear a message
 * 1) Assist families that need financial help
 * 1) Treat school uniforms as part of an overall safety program

Model School Uniform Policies
States and local school districts must decide how they will ensure a safe and disciplined learning environment. Below are some examples of school districts that have adopted school uniforms as part of their strategy.

Long Beach, California
code Type:                  Uniforms are mandatory in all elementary and middle schools. Each school in the district determines the uniform its students will wear.

Opt-out:               Yes, with parental consent

Size of program:       58,500 elementary and middle school students

Implementation date:   1994

code Dick Van Der Laan of the Long Beach Unified School District explained, "We can't attribute the improvement exclusively to school uniforms, but we think it's more than coincidental." According to Long Beach police chief William Ellis, "Schools have fewer reasons to call the police. There's less conflict among students. Students concentrate more on education, not on who's wearing $100 shoes or gang attire."
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: Each school must develop an assistance plan for families that cannot afford to buy uniforms. In most cases, graduating students either donate or sell used uniforms to needy families.
 * Results**: District officials found that in the year following implementation of the school uniform policy, overall school crime decreased 36 percent, fights decreased 51 percent, sex offenses decreased 74 percent, weapons offenses decreased 50 percent, assault and battery offenses decreased 34 percent, and vandalism decreased 18 percent. Fewer than one percent of the students have elected to opt out of the uniform policy.

Seattle, Washington
code Type:                  Mandatory uniform policy at South Shore Middle School

Opt-out:               Yes, with parental consent. Students who opt out must attend another middle school in the district.

Size of program:       900 middle school students

mplementation date:    1995

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: South Shore works with local businesses that contribute financial support to the uniform program. In addition, the administration at South Shore found that the average cost of clothing a child in a school with a prescribed wardrobe is less than in schools without such a program, sometimes 80 percent less. School officials believe that durability, reusability and year-to-year consistency also increase the economy of the school's plan.
 * Results**: The principal of South Shore, Dr. John German, reports that "this year the demeanor in the school has improved 98 percent, truancy and tardies are down, and we have not had one reported incident of theft." Dr. German explains that he began the uniform program because his students were "draggin', saggin' and laggin'. I needed to keep them on an academic focus. My kids were really into what others were wearing." Only five students have elected to attend another public school.

Richmond, Virginia
code Type:                  Voluntary uniform policy at Maymont Elementary School for the Arts and Humanities

Opt-out:               Uniforms are voluntary.

Size of program:       262 elementary school students

Implementation date:   1994

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**>: Responding to parent concerns about the cost of uniforms, the school sought community financial support for the uniform program. Largely as a result of financial donations from businesses and other community leaders, the percentage of students wearing uniforms rose from 30 percent in 1994-95, the first year of the program, to 85 percent during the current year.
 * Results**: Maymont principal Sylvia Richardson identifies many benefits of the uniform program, including improved behavior, an increase in attendance rates and higher student achievement.

Kansas City, Missouri
code Type:                  Mandatory uniform policy at George Washington Carver Elementary School

Opt-out:               None. Carver is a magnet school to which parents and students apply knowing about the uniform policy.

Size of program:       320 elementary school students

Implementation date:   1990

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: Students receive their uniforms at no cost to them. The state and school district pay for the uniforms primarily with magnet school funding.
 * Results**: Philomina Harshaw, the principal for all six years that Carver has had uniforms, observed a new sense of calmness throughout the school after students began wearing uniforms. "The children feel good about themselves as school uniforms build a sense of pride. It forces adults to know a child."

Memphis, Tennessee
code Type:                  Voluntary uniform policy at Douglas Elementary School

Opt-out:               Uniforms are voluntary.

Size of program:       532 elementary school students

Implementation date:   1993

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: Douglas has business partners in Memphis that have contributed financial support to purchase uniforms for needy families.
 * Results**: According to Guidance Counselor Sharon Carter, "The tone of the school is different. There's not the competitiveness, especially in grades, 4, 5, and 6, about who's wearing what." Ninety percent of the students have elected to wear uniforms on school uniform days, Monday through Thursday. Fridays are "casual" days during which none of the students wear uniforms.

Baltimore, Maryland
code Type:                  Voluntary uniform policy at Mt. Royal Elementary/Middle School

Opt-out:               Uniforms are voluntary.

Size of program:       950 elementary and middle school students

Implementation date:   1989

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: Mt. Royal Elementary/Middle School keeps a store of uniforms that are provided free to students who cannot afford the $35.00 to purchase them. Ninety-eight percent of graduating eighth graders donate their uniforms to the school.
 * Results**: According to Mt. Royal's assistant principal, Rhonda Thompson, the uniform policy "has enhanced the tone and climate of our building. It brings about a sense of seriousness about work." All of the students have elected to participate in the uniform program.

Norfolk, Virginia
code Type:                  Mandatory uniform policy at Ruffner Middle School

Opt-out:               None. Students who come to school without a           uniform are subject to in-school detention.

Size of program:       977 middle school students

Implementation date:   1995

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: The school provides uniforms for students who cannot afford them.
 * Results**: Using U.S. Department of Education software to track discipline data, Ruffner has noted improvements in students' behavior. Leaving class without permission is down 47 percent, throwing objects is down 68 percent and fighting has decreased by 38 percent. Staff attribute these changes in part to the uniform code.

Phoenix, Arizona
code Type:                  Mandatory uniform policy at Phoenix Preparatory Academy

Opt-out:               Yes, with parental consent. Students who opt out must attend another middle school in the district.

Size of program:       1,174 middle school students

Implementation date:   1995

code
 * Support for disadvantaged students**: A grant from a local foundation covers the $25 to $30 cost of uniforms for families that cannot afford to buy them.
 * Results**: According to the principal, Ramon Leyba, "The main result is an overall improvement in the school climate and a greater focus on positive behavior. A big portion of that is from uniforms."


 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif caption="spacer.gif"]] || || [[image:/images/ERIClogo2001_animated.gif caption="ERIC Logo"]] ||
 * ERIC Logo || ||  || Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management ||
 * College of Education · University of Oregon ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif caption="spacer.gif"]] |||| [[image:/images/small_navbar.gif caption="small_navbar.gif"]] ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif caption="spacer.gif"]] |||| [[image:/images/small_navbar.gif caption="small_navbar.gif"]] ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif caption="spacer.gif"]] |||| [[image:/images/small_navbar.gif caption="small_navbar.gif"]] ||

//by Wendell Anderson// //Opinions abound on what students should wear to class. But it's not only the fashion mavens who express strong feelings about clothing. School-board members, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students also enter the debate.// Some people believe that requiring students in school settings to conform to a dress code improves student behavior, reduces differences among socioeconomic levels, and enhances students' self-confidence. Others say that policies stipulating dress codes or requiring school uniforms infringe upon students' First Amendment rights, stifle individuality, and impose unnecessary means of control. The argument over school dress codes and school-uniform policies continues to rage in the meeting rooms, administrative offices, and classrooms of public schools throughout the country. Two fundamental questions fan the fires of debate:
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif caption="spacer.gif"]] ||  ||   ||
 * ||  || || [[image:/images/menu_publications.gif caption="Menu Image for publications"]] ||
 * Menu Image for publications || ||
 * ||  ||   ||   || ==School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies==
 * Are restrictive dress codes a sound idea in a society that, theoretically at least, celebrates diversity over uniformity?
 * Do dress codes and school-uniform policies decrease school violence and increase performance?

Divided Camps
Although the research data don’t show an absolutely clear link between dress and students’ behavior or performance, anecdotal evidence—and certainly many people’s perceptions—generally support some type of dress code in elementary, middle, and high schools, according to one camp’s view. The idea of school uniforms also appeals to many parents and teachers, especially in elementary and middle schools. Uniforms “are seen as a concrete and visible means of restoring order to the classrooms. Uniforms conjure up visions of parochial schools, which are perceived as safe, secure, and orderly learning environments” (Education Week 2001). In the other camp are some parents, civil libertarians, and students, particularly older ones, who oppose dress codes in general and uniform policies in particular. “Critics point to the fact that uniform requirements cramp students’ freedom of expression and amount to nothing more than a band-aid [sic] solution to the illness that ails our schools. They also point to the financial burden uniforms put on lower-income families” (Wills 2001). This Policy Report examines the issue of school dress codes and uniform policies from a variety of perspectives. The section below presents a brief history of dress codes and uniforms, focusing on the last fifteen years. On pages that follow, the report examines the motivations behind establishing dress codes in light of recent events and presents arguments for and arguments against dress codes and uniforms. Because so many legal issues have been raised over dress codes and uniforms, this report also examines some of the legal actions and important court decisions regarding restrictive dress codes and uniforms. And finally, the report offers suggestions and guidelines from a variety of sources for developing, implementing, and enforcing school dress codes and school-uniform policies.

Fashion Show: A Brief History of Dress in Schools
The presumption, variously expressed, that dress affects behavior and performance is, of course, not a new one. “Clothes make the man.” “The apparel oft proclaims the man.” “Good clothes open all doors.” “Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.” The dictum “Dress right, act right” was heard often in schools in the 1950s and ’60s during campaigns to curb “juvenile delinquency.” In the 1950s, many school dress codes prohibited girls from wearing slacks. In the 1960s, many school administrators stipulated the length of girls’ skirts. Blue jeans, motorcycle boots, and black leather jackets were considered dangerous attire on boys and linked to gangs. In the 1980s, an effort to thwart growing gang activity in schools led school officials to reexamine their schools’ dress codes and consider policies requiring uniforms. Restrictive dress codes were introduced in many secondary schools with the intent of prohibiting gang attire. “These efforts have taken on a sense of considerable urgency in areas where gang activity threatens the safety of the school environment. Though gang members are known to intimidate others in various ways, their clothes have been a primary form of gang member identification” (Lane and others 1996). Public school districts and individual schools have long established dress codes proscribing certain clothing. The first public school known to have adopted uniforms was Cherry Hill Elementary in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1987. In 1994, Long Beach (CA) Unified School District (LBUSD) was the first school district to adopt a districtwide uniform dress code policy. The idea of dress codes and uniforms gained official sanction when President Clinton endorsed the idea of public-school uniforms in his 1996 State of the Union Address. Following Clinton’s direction, the U.S. Department of Education mailed A Manual of School Uniforms to all 16,000 school districts in the United States. With guidelines in hand, school boards and administrators began to develop dress codes and uniform policies. It’s not clear how many districts and schools now enforce a dress code or uniform policy. But the trend toward proscribing and prescribing what students wear to class continues to grow, along with the debate.
 * By 1999, 72 percent of New York City’s 675 elementary schools had a standardized dress code.
 * In 2000, the Philadelphia School Board unanimously adopted a districtwide policy requiring some type of uniform.
 * By 2000, in Miami, 60 percent of the public schools required uniforms; in Chicago, 80 percent.
 * By 2000, 30 percent of the public schools in San Francisco, 50 percent of the schools in Cincinnati, 65 percent in Boston, 85 percent in Cleveland, and 95 percent in New Orleans had school-uniform programs.
 * Also by 2000, 37 state legislatures, including those in California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia, had enacted legislation empowering local districts to set their own uniform policies. (Morris and Wells 2000)

Codes and Policies: Dressing Up
Dress codes and uniform policies are not the same. Simply stated, dress codes state what must not be worn; uniform policies state what must be worn. The distinction is important, particularly in light of legal challenges. For example, dress codes that prohibit the wearing of clothing or symbols linked to gangs have been traditionally upheld by the courts, whereas uniform policies are sometimes viewed as violations of students’ rights. But uniform policies adopted to minimize gang-related violence are often viewed as issues of safety and upheld by the courts. (See “Dress Codes and Case Law” in this Policy Report.) The debate over what to wear at school has many levels and subplots. Officials in a number of districts and schools in recent years have tempered their approaches by enacting stricter dress codes rather than forcing the wearing of uniforms. School officials in Fayette County, suburban Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, decided in favor of a tighter dress code in 1999 in response to community demands (White 2000). The Marple Newtown School District in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, chose a dress code rather than uniforms. The fairly typical code prohibits the wearing of tube tops, halter tops, cutoff shorts, short shorts, and clothes that promote alcohol or drugs. “Going from a loose dress code to school uniforms seemed like a knee-jerk reaction,” said Raj Chopra, superintendent of the suburban Philadelphia school system. “It seems like an easy solution, but our goal was to get students to dress for success” (in White 2000). But the solution remains far from easy. There are many layers to the debate.

Adapting to Changing Fashions
Some people claim that dress codes focus too much on girls’ fashions because girls’ fashions change more often than boys’ do. In a much publicized “fashion show” in September 2001 at Old Mill Senior High School in Millersville, Maryland, the outfit worn by senior Katrina Howard turned heads with her “inappropriate” attire: jeans cut with horizontal vents from waist to ankles and a midriff-baring one-strap halter top (Bowman and Bushweller 2001). The third annual Old Mill Fashion Show was an opportunity for administrators to display acceptable and unacceptable student dress as described in the school’s dress code. Girls’ fashions attracted the most attention. At the time, skin was in. But the Old Mill Senior High School dress code prohibited the wearing of tops and jeans that reveal too much skin. For boys, Old Mill’s dress code prohibited pants sagging to reveal underwear, cutoff T-shirts, tight skullcaps, and various techno-toys such as cell phones. Part of the problem schools face with implementing dress codes is that youth fashions change frequently and radically. It’s difficult for administrators to keep up; therefore, many schools adopt general dress codes. John Brucato, principal of Milford High School in Milford, Massachusetts, described to CNN his school’s dress code, which seems to encapsulate the principles in many dress codes: We ask our students to dress and groom themselves as individuals with a sense of responsibility and self-respect. So, it’s not a matter of what you must wear; it’s more of a matter of what we don’t feel is appropriate. Specifically, if it becomes disruptive, offensive, threatening, or provocative to others, is vulgar, displays tobacco or alcohol advertising, profanity, racial slurs, has disruptive images of gang-related symbols. (Brucato in CNN.com 2001a) In some respects, school-uniform policies are easier to maintain than dress codes. Part of the acceptance of uniforms has to do with style. The style of today’s uniforms is more relaxed to suit the times. The traditional blazer, white blouse, plaid skirt for girls and dark slacks, white shirt, school tie for boys are still seen. But more modern styles such as white T-shirts with blue jeans, denim shirts or skirts, and khaki pants with cargo pockets are not uncommon. French Toast, the largest manufacturer of school uniforms, features more than 4,000 uniform items. After President Clinton called for uniforms in his 1996 speech, many schools answered the call. And manufacturers and retailers also jumped on the bandwagon. In 1999, American families spent some $1.5 billion on uniforms (Marchant 1999). Major retailers such as Sears and Kmart stock uniforms. About two-thirds of uniforms are sold during the annual “back-to-school” season (BlueSuitMom.com 2000). But while the debate over dress codes and school uniforms rages, there is one point almost everyone agrees on: Student dress does not cause or will not cure all the ills facing our schools. Implementing a dress code or uniform policy should be only one of several changes designed to improve standards in schools, said Jay Goldman, editor of School Administrator. A dress code “as part of a wider array of policies and practices is probably a very good thing,” he said. “If done as a supposed quick fix, it is a terrible idea. Nothing is a quick fix in education” (Goldman in Marchant 1999).

SIDEBAR
**Viewpoints** “This [dress code] has been something we’ve been working on for five years now. We didn’t have a big problem before. We’re just being more rigid about it.” —Patricia Pitt, assistant principal, Old Mill Senior High School, Millersville, Maryland “We don’t have mandatory uniforms, but we do have a very strict dress code that includes all collared shirts that are to be tucked in. But since the only shorts we allow are uniform shorts, a lot our students end up wearing at least one part of the uniform on a regular basis.” —Rod Federwisch, principal, Anna Borba School, Chino, California “When parents come to enroll their children, we tell them right away that we’re a uniform school, and they say, ‘We know, we’re happy about it.’ Teachers and parents love the fact that we have uniforms. The children. . . Well, that’s a different story.” —DeLores Wilson, principal, Poplar Halls Elementary, Norfolk, Virginia

SIDEBAR
**Principals Speak Out** In 1999, three researchers set out to gather opinions on dress codes from school principals. They polled 240 principals chosen randomly from a national directory. Their sample was equally divided among principals of elementary, middle, and high schools. More than 60 percent of the principals responded; some even sent copies of their dress codes for the researchers to analyze. Following are some of the results of the survey: • About 85 percent of the principals believed that some sort of dress code was needed at their school. • More than half the principals said their schools had formally adopted a dress code. • Most principals believed that dress codes improve student behavior, reduce peer sexual harassment, prepare students for the work world, and are worth the effort it takes to enforce them. • Middle-school principals expressed the strongest support for mandatory uniforms. • High-school principals stated the strongest support for dress codes but were less enthusiastic about uniforms. • Principals in rural areas showed greater support for dress codes than principals in suburban and urban schools. • Urban principals showed greater support for uniforms, followed by suburban and rural principals. //Wendell Anderson is a research analyst and writer for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.// ||  ||

=School Uniforms: Prevention or Suppression?" //by Raymond F. Felch III//= Consider the following excerpts from the President’s Radio Address to the Nation; //"This morning I want to talk with you about what we can do to break hold of gangs and violence in our schools and what we can do to create an atmosphere in our schools that promotes discipline and order and learning ... I believe we should give strong support to school districts that decide to require young students to wear school uniforms. We’ve all seen the tragic headlines screaming of the death of a teenager who was killed for a pair of sneakers or jewelry or a designer jacket. In Detroit, a 15-year old boy was shot for his $86 basketball shoes. In Fort Lauderdale, a 15-year old student was robbed of his jewelry. Just this past December in Oxon Hill, Maryland, a 17-year old honor student was killed at a bus stop, caught in the cross fire during the robbery of another students designer jacket"// (Clinton, "Transcript," 1-2). Why are we proposing to mandate school uniforms for all elementary and middle schools students, while at the same time excluding high school students? Is it not obvious, by the President’s own accounting, that the problem group is teenage students ages 15 and older? Moreover, is there any indisputable evidence that school uniforms can help cure society’s violence and disciplinary problems? How reliable are the statistics that show the short term implementation of school uniforms in a select group of elementary and middle schools prevents violence? Knowing all of this, are we still willing to freely give up more of our God given constitutional rights? Worse yet, by accepting this proposal, are we saying that we are in favor of stifling the creativity and individuality of our children? The Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, and under the direction of President Clinton, has developed the Manual of School Uniforms. On February 24, 1996, President Clinton signed a directive to distribute this manual to the Nation’s 1600 public school districts (Clinton, "Text," 2). Furthermore, the leaders of our schools appear to have hastily embraced this new proposal. A recent national survey of 5,500 secondary school principals shows that they feel school uniforms would help eliminate violence (Tousignant 1). Shawn Ashley, principal in the Long Beach Unified School District, claims there have been fewer incidents of fighting since they imposed the mandatory school uniform policy one year ago. Ashley reports that incidents of fighting has dropped from 1,135 in the 1993-94 school year, to only 554 for the 1994-95 school year (Kennedy 1). Clearly, this is an issue that affects parents across the nation, and should be carefully examined before giving our unconditional support. I believe that any proposal is dangerous if it fails to address the real problem, threatens to diminish our constitutional rights and has been promoted by using misleading statistics. There is no question that school uniforms can instill a feeling of school spirit, school pride and social acceptance. When compared to designer clothes and name brand basketball shoes, school uniforms can also be a cost effective solution to school wear. Surely, this is an appealing benefit to those families that find it difficult, if not impossible, to afford such luxuriance. Certainly, parents will find that it is easier to shop for their children’s school attire, and the students will be able to quickly choose their outfits for school in the morning. Unfortunately, as well served as this proposal may appear, school uniforms can not solve the nation’s problems of gang violence. Clearly, these deeply rooted problems are well beyond the scope of any school uniform policy. Furthermore, mandating this policy only at the elementary and middle school level does nothing to curb gang violence occurring at the high schools across our country. As Loren Siegel, Director of the Public Education Department, ACLU, points out, school administrators and teachers have been reluctant to impose the school uniform policy on high school students, because it most certainly will cause the teenagers to rebel (Siegel 1). Cecilia Smith, a guidance counselor at Forestville High School in Prince George’s, tells of how teenage students rebelled when school uniforms were tried at their school. Smith explains that the teenagers were rebelling because they were afraid that "it was going to take their individuality away" (Tousignant 2). Also, Siegel argues that younger children can be persuaded to wear school uniforms. Some children may even like the idea of school uniforms and the feeling of being part of the school community. Unfortunately, teenagers are at a point in their lives where expressing their individuality is extremely important. She describes teenagers as young people that are striving to express uniqueness in many different ways. Siegel cleverly shows that the teenagers are already in uniforms of their own choosing -- baggy pants, T-shirts and baseball caps worn backward (Siegel 1). Clearly, there is no way that school administrators, teachers and parents could expect the proposed school uniform policy to be imposed at the high school level. Up until now, we have discussed why a school uniform policy is futile in preventing gang violence in our schools. This however, is not the only problem with the school uniform policy. We still need to examine the effect that such a proposal would have on our constitutional rights. Recently, the A.C.L.U. represented twenty-six families in a school uniform lawsuit against the Long Beach Unified School District. Although the case resulted in an out-of-court settlement, and both sides tentatively agreed to certain provisions, this case raised important issues concerning our legal rights. Barbara Bernstein, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, reaffirmed the opinion of the A.C.L.U. when she stated that requiring school uniforms is not only illegal, it is not the solution to the school system’s problems. Clearly, Bernstein was in favor of President Clinton’s goal, calling it "admirable;" however she pointed out that it should not be "accomplished at the expense of constitutional rights" (McCarthey 2). Surely, the Long Beach lawsuit has been instrumental in raising the public’s awareness of the legal ramifications associated with adopting the school uniform proposal. One important aspect caused by the litigation surrounding the school uniform policy is the "opt out" provision. As a condition of the Long Beach settlement, the school district will attempt to improve the communication with parents and provide improved exemption procedures. The relevance of this provision is clearly demonstrated by the reference made in the Manual of School Uniforms, Item #5: "When a mandatory school uniform policy is adopted, determine whether to have an ‘opt out’ provision" ("Manual" 2). The reference in this manual instructs the school administrators on how to provide parents with an exemption from the policy. In some cases, the parents can "opt" to have their children go to another school. In the case where all of the schools in the district require uniforms, as is the case in the Long Beach Unified School District, the parents can "opt" to send their children to school without uniforms ("Manual" 2). In any case, the inclusion of this provision in President Clinton’s Manual of School Uniforms shows a genuine concern that a mandatory policy may infringe on our constitutional rights. Obviously, one would have to agree that a school uniform policy can do little to fight gang violence in our schools. Furthermore, we should all be in agreement that a mandatory school uniform policy is considered unconstitutional. These issues however, are not the only ones surrounding the school uniform proposal. To gain an overall understanding of the problem, discussion of the misleading statistics used in promoting this policy is necessary. In order to emphasis his position on the school uniform proposal and its apparent effectiveness, President Clinton draws attention to the Long Beach Unified School District as the model system. As Siegel points out, in an obvious attempt to demonstrate its success, President Clinton misleadingly reports the Long Beach School’s self-generated data showing decreases in student misconduct. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the other steps taken by the School District to improve school behavior during the experimental year. Siegel reports, at the same time the school uniform policy was implemented, the District began "increasing the number of teachers patrolling the hallways during class changes" (Siegel 1). Clearly, no one can be sure which change had the most effect on student behavior. Furthermore, we need to remember who the gate-keeper of this conclusive data is. Could the school administrators, in an attempt to promote the effectiveness of their new policy and in light of the national attention it had drawn, have possibly overlooked certain infractions during the year? Whereas, the reliability of the Long Beach case study is clearly questionable, we must also examine the effects of other changes made at the state level across the nation. Craig Donegan, editor for Congressional Quarterly, reports a 1995 survey by the National Conference of Mayors indicating there has been an increase in the number of youth curfews by 45 percent since 1990. Donegan also acknowledges that a recent National Governor’s Association (NGA) report states that between 1992 and 1994 there have been 27 states that have passed laws making it easier to prosecute children as adults (Donegan 2). In addition, Senator John Ashcroft enacted the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile Offender Reform Act of 1995 (Donegan 1). Ashcroft also indicated that he wants the funding of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to be contingent upon states prosecuting juveniles age 14 and up as adults. Many cities and states have adopted laws that hold the parents of delinquent children accountable for their chldren’s behavior (Donegan 2). Clearly, there have been many changes made at the national, state and local levels which have been attributed to having a positive effect on juvenile violence. Regardless of these changes, there is very little correlation between requiring school uniforms at the elementary and middle school levels, and the recent reduction in teenage violence at our high schools. In conclusion, the failure to address the real problem of violence in our schools, it’s impact on our constitutional rights and the misleading manner in which it has been proposed, clearly illustrates why we should avert from an unconditional acceptance of the mandatory school uniform policy. It is very clear that we have a serious juvenile violence problem in our country, and positive efforts are constantly being made to alleviate the problem. However, we should not fall victim to the illusion that requiring school uniforms for children under the age of 14 can prevent this teenage violence. Likewise, we need to remember that our constitution insures our right to creativity. We have an obligation to insure that our children are allowed to grow, to be creative and to be independent thinkers. Finally, there has not been any official case studies conducted that prove that school uniforms can prevent teenage violence. The disseminated and relaxed data, which has been so cleverly capitalized upon by our administrators, is inconclusive at best. Our tendency to unconditionally accept a school uniform proposal is just one more example of society’s apathetic approach to problem solving. We all need to take a more active role when addressing issues that concern the rights and welfare of our family. Clinton, William J. __Text of Presidential Memo to Secretary of Education on School Uniforms__ Washington DC: U.S. Newswire, 1996. Clinton, William J. __Transcript of Presidential Radio Address to the Nation__. Washington DC: U.S. Newswire, 1996. Donegan, Craig "Crackdowns Favored Over Prevention of Juvenile Crime" __Congressional Quarterly - Scripps Howard News Service__ April 3, 1996. Kennedy, J. Michael "Common Denominator: Schools See Less Violence When Kids Wear Uniforms" __Los Angeles Times__ August 21, 1995. "Manual on School Uniforms" __Department of Education, Congress__ February 29, 1996. McCarthey, Molly "Uniform Proposal Doesn’t Wear Well" __Newsday__ March 4, 1996. Siegel, Loren "Point of View: School Uniforms" __A.C.L.U.__ March 1, 1996. Tousignant, Marylou "Trying Uniforms on for Size" __Washington Post.__ March 1, 1996. Polk County School Uniforms Home Page Long Beach Unified School District Uniform Initiative: A Prevention-Intervention Strategy for Urban Schools, The ==[|Journal of Negro Education, The], [|Fall 2003] by [[[], Rebecca A|Lopez, Rebecca A]]== One school-based solution to providing a more healthy and equitable learning environment for children is discussed here. This article describes the first, most extensive mandatory school uniform policy in place in the United States-that of the Long Beach (California) Unified School District. The relative ease of assimilation of this policy and its compelling crime and absentee reduction outcomes to date are discussed. Several theoretical perspectives regarding the contributions of dress to the developing self-esteem in school-age children are also presented.
 * Bibliography**
 * [|1]
 * [|2]
 * [|3]
 * [|4]
 * [|5]
 * [|6]
 * [|7]
 * [|8]
 * [|9]
 * [|10]
 * [|12]
 * [|Next]
 * [|Next]

More Articles of Interest
The ability of public schools to maintain an atmosphere of safety for academic achievement and social competence has been increasingly encroached upon by several contemporary social and commercial phenomena. Schools have become sites of violence and dysfunction even as more and more children depend on them as pivotal resources in fostering healthy and productive development. For many children, the school setting can determine children's success or downward spiral into failure in surrounding social systems. According to Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostemy, and Pardo (1992), "Not only are schools one of the most continuous institutions in children's lives, but, after the family, schools represent the most important developmental unit in modern social systems" (p. 121). We expect that our schools will not only address academic and intellectual growth, but will also be available to contribute to the child's sense of psychological comfort and trust (Comer, 1980; Gibbs & Huang, 1998). Yet, our schools reflect many of the social problems extant in the surrounding community and are hard-pressed to provide refuge for many children. Gang influence has pervaded many of our cities and schools, as has vandalism and other expressions of rage against our schools. Several accounts in the popular press have reported the horrific actions of students who have been bullied into unthinkable acts against classmates and staff. Whether it be a local occurrence or far across our country, we are all casualties of these events as we watch a generation of children living in fear in what was once considered an island of predictability-the school setting.
 * [|Dress Code Blues: An Exploration of Urban Students' Reactions to a Public...]
 * [|School uniforms work]
 * [|School uniforms help to keep focus on learning process]
 * [|SCHOOL UNIFORMS HELP TEACH KIDS ABOUT STANDARDS]
 * [|Uniforms: psychology]

Society is dependent upon our schools to "transfer" to new generations our social expectations, our hopes, beliefs, and values (Feldman, 2000, p. 318). But we must ask ourselves what bodies of values and beliefs many schools are sponsoring when children are confronted by violence in the school setting. And what of the role of media and commercial exploitation which offers many ideals, but few opportunities? The bombarding of our children by influence peddling in the form of dress, food, and other products from corporations and industries, detract from the optimal functioning of schools in their academic mission and may play a role in providing social obstacles for poor or minority children (Goldstein & Conoley, 1997). Daily exhibitions of commercialism and conspicuous consumption by some students can mean that the building of a positive sense of self in childhood can rest on the ability to wear the latest clothing label. This article describes a school-based program that seeks to provide a safer and more stable environment and climate for one group of children in California public schools. The evolution of the program and challenges to mandatory dress requirements are offered. A survey of child developmental tasks that may be influenced by appearance is also provided. DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN Theoretical Perspectives The developmental needs of school-age children have been cited in decades of literature in areas of physical, cognitive, social, and emotional growth typified by increasing social interaction (Berger & Federico, 1985; Erikson, 1959; Gibbs & Huang, 1998). The person-in-environment perspective espoused by Erikson (1968) requires that we consider opportunities lost when schools do not offer safe settings for socialization and for learning skills that will allow the individual to participate in greater societal systems. Berger and Federico (1985) refer to "social-structural obstacles" that preclude healthy, normative child development. Instead of facilitating development, these obstacles serve to "reduce the child's sense of safety, security, competence, mastery, or health" (p. 156). The sources of these social events include poverty, racism, discrimination, natural disasters and accidents, and challenged and even dysfunctional families, schools, and peer groups. These obstacles can hinder the social and emotional development of children as they strive to solidify positive self-concepts of who they are and where they fit into the environment. The person-in-environment perspective espoused by Erikson (1968) must take into account that schools are one crucial social setting for the testing of three inherent "social drives" that include the need for (a) social attention, (b) competence in mastering environment, and (c) structure and order in one's life. The building of self-esteem in this drive is pivotal during the school-age period-it sets the stage for children's sense of mastery in progressively expanding social interactions (Erikson, 1968; Ho, 1992). Mutual peer assessment is part and parcel of the school experience. Children in classrooms and schools become involved in a process of "social comparison" which forces evaluation of their behavior and abilities in comparison to their peers (Baumeister, 1993; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997). Also relevant to understanding the process of development of self-concept is symbolic interaction theory, which stresses evaluation and internalization of those evaluations as contributors in forming children's self-images (Lawrence, 1998). Children that are perceived to be "different" or "less" by other children will receive those messages in no uncertain terms. A school system that promotes difference in the form of status indicators is one example of the "caste" system (Appleby, Colon, & Hamilton, 2001; Rumbaut & Portes, 2001). Segregation among children, created by status differences, can occur and discourage and estrange those enmeshed in the critical tasks of self-categorization and personal estimation. In reference to the sense of "differentness" particularly experienced by oppressed children, Appleby et al. (2001) indicate that oppression by schools is an "institutional process that is experienced personally as stigma, stress, guilt, and shame. Stigma significantly influences identity development" (p. 45). Gibbs and Huang (1998) comment on the "triple stigma" which exists for children who are non-White, non-Anglo-Saxon, and non-middle class (p. 12). They suggest that many children in America today are faced with this obstacle to personal development.

Scientific School Uniform Research The scientific research on uniforms is just starting to come in. The following discusses a paper from The Journal of Education Research (Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62) by David L. Brunsma from the University of Alabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of Notre Dame: Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement This study showed that uniforms did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement. Click [|here] to read the study for yourself. Here's the abstract from their study:

Mandatory uniform policies have been the focus of recent discourse on public school reform. Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specific behavioral and academic outcomes. Tenth grade data from The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 was used to test empirically the claims made by uniform advocates. The findings indicate that **student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, or attendance.** Contrary to current discourse, **the authors found a negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievemen**t. Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environments and student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement and reform.

Brunsma and Rockquemore wanted to investigate the extraordinary claims being made about how wonderful school uniforms are, particularly from the Long Beach California. It was being claimed that mandatory uniform policies were resulting in massive decreases (50 to 100 percent) in crime and disciplinary problems.

//It is typically assumed, as exemplified in Long Beach, that uniforms are the sole factor causing direct change in numerous behavioral and academic outcomes. Those pronouncements by uniform proponents have raised strident objections and created a political climate in which public school uniform policies have become highly contested. The ongoing public discourse is not only entrenched in controversy but also largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hence, it now seems critical that empirical analysis should be conducted to inform the school uniform debate. In this study, we investigated the relationship between uniforms and several outcomes that represent the core elements of uniform proponent's claims. Specifically, we examined how a uniform affects attendance, behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. We believe that a thorough analysis of the arguments proposed by uniform advocates will add critical insight to the ongoing debate on the effects of school uniform policies. (Brunsma// and Rockquemore, 1998, pg. 54) The authors point out that if uniforms work, they should see some of the following trends in schools with uniforms: 1. Student uniforms decrease substance use (drugs). 2. Student uniforms decrease behavioral problems. 3. Student uniforms increase attendance. 4. Student uniforms increase academic achievement. They suspected that when other variables affecting these four items were accounted for, it would be shown that uniforms were not the cause for improvement. They used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and three follow-up studies. These studies tracked a national sample of eighth graders (in 1988) from a wide variety of public and private schools and followed their academic careers through college. Some of the data collected in the studies included uniform policies, student background (economic and minority status), peer group (attitudes towards school and drug use), school achievement, and behavioral characteristics (how often did each student get into trouble, fights, suspensions, etc.). The authors concentrated on data from the students 10th grade year.
 * How They Did Their Study**

Some of the independent variables they considered were sex, race, economic status, public or private school, academic or vocational "tracking", rural or urban district, peer proschool attitudes, academic preparedness, the student's own proschool attitudes, and most importantly, whether or not the students wore uniforms. The researchers wanted to determine if there was a tie between these variables and desirable behavior by the students. The areas that they were looking for improvement as a result of the previous variables included reduced absenteeism, fewer behavioral problems, reduced illegal drug use, and improved standardized test scores. The researchers considered this second group of variables to be the dependent variables. The goal of their study was to determine if there was any relationship between the independent variables (particularly uniforms) and the dependent variables. The authors took all of the data for these variables from the NELS:88 study and performed a regression analysis to see if any of the independent variables were predictors of any of the dependent variables. If there was a strong tie in the data between any two variables ( uniforms and absenteeism, for example), it would show up in the study as a correlation coefficient close to 1 or -1. A correlation coefficient near 0 indicates no relationship between the two variables. So, if wearing uniforms had a large effect on behavior, we would expect to see a correlation coefficient of say 0.5 between uniforms and measures of good behavior. If we see a very low correlation coefficient between these two, then we know that wearing uniforms has no real effect on behavior. The only positive result for uniforms that the study showed was a very slight relationship between uniforms and standardized achievement scores. The correlation coefficient was 0.05, indicating a very slight possible relationship between the two variables, but showing that uniforms are a very poor predictor of standardized test scores and that the relationship is much weaker than has been indicated in the uniform debate. Notice that 0,05 is much closer to 0 than to 1. Other than this one weak, possible relationship, uniforms struck out. In the authors own words: //Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variables such as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing uniforms did not appear to have any significantly different academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peer group structures with proschool attitudes than other students. Moreover, the negative correlations between the attitudinal variables and the various outcomes of interest are significant; hence, the predictive analysis provides more substantive results.// In other words, the authors saw no relationship between wearing uniforms and the desirable behavior (reduced absenteeism, reduced drug usage, improved behavior). They did, however, see a strong relationship between academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and peers having proschool attitudes and the desirable behaviors. Furthermore, they saw no relationship between wearing uniforms and the variables that do predict good behavior (academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and peers having proschool attitudes). Based upon this analysis, the authors were forced to reject the ideas that uniforms improved attendance rates, decreased behavioral problems, decreased drug use, or improved academic achievement. The authors did find that proschool attitudes from students and their peers and good academic preparedness did predict the desired behavior. They saw that wearing uniforms did not lead to improvements in proschool attitudes or increased academic preparation.
 * Results**
 * Conclusion**

David L. Brunsma, D.L. and Rockquemore, K.A. (1998) Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement, //The Journal of Education Research// Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62
 * References**

Polk County School Uniforms Home Page

[[image:http://i34.netscape.com/c.cgi?A2715634$1487313$1024x768xundefinedx32$http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS251US252&q=school+uniforms+research width="115" height="22" caption="external image search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS251US252&q=school+uniforms+research" link="http://hitometer.netscape.com"]] Visits since Nov. 30th, 1999.

**Print**  **Federal judge: Uniforms may stay, but so may student's armband**
 * [[image:http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/images/buttons/printicon.gif width="20" height="15" caption="print this" link="@http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=8289&printer-friendly=y"]] ||
 * print this ||

The Associated Press 12.28.99  (Editor's note: The Bossier Parish School Board voted 11-0 on Jan. 6 not to appeal U.S. District Judge Don Walter's ruling. Board member Kenneth Wiggins said the board wanted 'to ensure all parties [had] the rights and privileges due them.') SHREVEPORT, La. — Schools can make students wear uniforms, but a federal judge says they cannot keep students from wearing black armbands to protest the policy. The Bossier School System did not provide any evidence that Jennifer Roe interfered with other students' education or rights by wearing a black ribbon around her arm, Judge Don Walter ruled on Dec. 17. Schools and the school board offices are closed for the holidays. Roe was one of four students pulled out of class on Aug. 23 at Parkway High and asked to remove the armbands or be punished for a uniform violation. They could have been suspended or expelled, said Joe Cook of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Roe and her mother, Elizabeth Fisher. 'I think in this day and time when students are treated more as inmates than free persons, it applies some constitutional brakes to that slide,' Cook said of Walter's ruling. The ruling forbids Principal Kim Gaspard or the Bossier Parish School Board to discipline Roe for wearing the armband. It also states that any mention that Roe wore the armband must be removed from school board and school records. Walter quoted the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in //Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District// that said 'state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism,' and that students must be allowed freedom of expression. Walter said that he assumed the 'armband' to be no more than an inch wide. According to //The Times// of Shreveport, the school board will likely decide at its Jan. 6 meeting whether to appeal the ruling.

What are the constitutional objections to mandatory dress codes and uniform policies? Generally, the most common constitutional claims alleged are (1) violations of students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; (2) violations of students’ First Amendment rights to freely practice their religion; or (3) violations of parents' 14th Amendment liberty interests in rearing their children. Many students claim that requiring them to wear particular clothing deprives them of the ability to freely express themselves through their choice of dress. In one case, students from a Kentucky high school claimed that their school’s dress code policy that prohibited clothing with any logos other than the official school logo was a violation of their free expression rights. The federal court, however, sided with the school district, finding that it had "struck a reasonable balance" between preventing potential disruptions and protecting students' First Amendment rights.[|1] In another case, a high school student brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a school board policy prohibiting male students from wearing earrings. The school, which had enacted the ban as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs on campus, provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity -- and the resulting violence -- in its schools. Ultimately the court upheld the district’s dress code policy, concluding that the board’s concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment.[|2] Some students have also argued that a particular dress code or uniform policy conflicts with their religious beliefs, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. For example, two high school students in Texas sued after school officials prohibited them from wearing rosaries to school, based on the belief that the rosaries were considered "gang-related" apparel. The students claimed that the application of the rule to them violated both their free speech and free exercise rights.[|3] This time, the federal court ruled that the school //had// violated the First Amendment rights of the two students. Although the court did "not doubt that a dress code can be one means of restricting gang activity on campus," it also concluded that "the regulation places an undue burden on Plaintiffs, who seek to display the rosary not to identify themselves with a gang, but as a sincere expression of their religious beliefs." Yet another objection, this one raised by parents, has been that forcing students to wear particular clothing infringes on a parent's 14th Amendment liberty interest in rearing their child, in violation of the Due Process Clause. In fact, many parents around the country have formed groups devoted to challenging school uniforms.[|4] These groups have argued that the implementation of restrictive uniform and dress code policies violates the First Amendment and the principle of democratic self-choice. So far, though, the courts are tending to side with school districts on parental and student challenges to uniform policies. Because the law is still rapidly developing in this area, school districts should consult with legal counsel before adopting a broad-based uniform policy. At the very least, any school policies requiring uniforms should have a provision that protects the right of parents and students to opt out on religious grounds. Notes //Long v. Bd. of Education of Jefferson County//, Kentucky, 121 F. Supp. 2d. 621 (W.D. Kent. 2000), aff’d, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18103 (2001). //Oleson v. Bd. of Education of Sch. Dist.//, No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987). //Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent Sch. Dist.//, 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997). Hudson, D., "Parents Across the South Battle Mandatory School Dress Codes." Available on-line at [|firstamendmentcenter.org].


 * ERIC Identifier:** ED415570
 * Publication Date:** 1998-01-00
 * Author:** Isaacson, Lynne
 * Source:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

Student Dress Policies. ERIC Digest, Number 117.
In recent years, schools across the country have experienced violence, gang activity, and thefts of clothing and accessories. Many school boards, mindful of their responsibility to provide safe school environments for students, have implemented policies specifying dress codes or the wearing of uniforms. As many as 25 percent of the nation's public elementary, middle, and junior high schools were expected to implement dress-related policies during the 1997-98 school year, according to the CALIFORNIA SCHOOL NEWS (March 31, 1997). Ten states allow school districts to mandate school uniforms. Educators and the public are divided over the value of implementing school-uniform policies in the public schools. This Digest examines arguments for and against school-uniform policies, identifies legal considerations, and offers guidelines for implementing policies on student dress.

===WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SCHOOL UNIFORMS?=== One of the chief benefits of school uniforms, say proponents, is that they make schools safer. Uniforms are said to reduce gang influence, minimize violence by reducing some sources of conflict, and help to identify trespassers. Parents benefit because they are no longer pressured to buy the latest fashions, and they spend less on their children's clothing. Uniforms are also claimed to help erase cultural and economic differences among students, set a tone for serious study, facilitate school pride, and improve attendance (Cohn 1996, Loesch 1995, Paliokos and others 1996). Proponents also say uniforms enhance students' self-concepts, classroom behavior, and academic performance (Caruso 1996).

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION?
Opponents contend that school-uniform policies infringe upon students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; interfere with students' natural tendency to experiment with their identities; are tools of administrative power and social control; offer a piecemeal approach to issues of racial and economic injustice; and may discriminate against students from minority backgrounds (Caruso 1996, Cohn and Siegal 1996). Some believe uniforms will not erase social class lines, because policies do not apply to other items that can be used to convey status, such as jewelry, backpacks, and bikes. Uniforms may not be feasible in high schools, because older students are more independent. Others argue that it is wrong to make children's right to a public-school education contingent upon compliance with a uniform policy (Caruso, Cohn and Siegal).

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES TO DATE?
Most preliminary findings come from the Long Beach (California) Unified School District, the first U.S. public school system to require uniforms for elementary and middle school students. Before implementing its policy in September 1994, the school district required approval from two-thirds of the parents (Caruso 1996). Long Beach Superintendent Carl A. Cohn reported that during the first year suspensions decreased by 32 percent, school crime by 36 percent, fighting by 51 percent, and vandalism by 18 percent (Cohn). At Whittier Elementary, attendance rates have risen each year since the policy went into effect, reaching a high of 96 percent (Caruso). Schools in Chicago, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Virginia have made similar claims (Caruso). Parents have responded favorably to uniform policies. In Long Beach, only 500 parents petitioned to opt their children out of the mandate. In a national marketing survey conducted by Lands End, a Wisconsin-based clothing catalog company, respondents agreed that a uniform policy "could help reduce problems associated with dress," and most felt the price was "about the same or less than the cost of a regular school wardrobe" (CALIFORNIA SCHOOL NEWS). California requires school districts to subsidize the cost of uniforms for low-income students. A 1996 survey of 306 middle school students in the Charleston, South Carolina, County School District found that school uniforms affected student perceptions of school climate. Students in a middle school with a uniform policy had a significantly higher perception of their school's climate than did students in a school without a uniform policy (Murray 1997). Student reactions range from delight at not having to decide what to wear to displeasure at looking like a "nerd." It is important, therefore, to include students as well as parents in the uniform-selection process.

WHAT LEGAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED?
To date, most legal challenges to dress-code policies have been based on either (1) claims that the school has infringed on the student's First Amendment right to free expression or (2) claims under the Fourteenth Amendment that the school has violated the student's liberty to control his or her personal appearance (Paliokos and others 1996). FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS. The clash between students' rights of free expression and the responsibility of public-school authorities to provide a safe learning environment is the central issue in the debate over dress-code policy. In developing a ban on gang-like attire, whether through implementing a dress-code or a school-uniform policy, administrators should ask: (1) Is there a direct link between the targeted attire and disruption of the school environment? and (2) Is the prohibition specific enough to target the threatening attire without infringing on students' rights? (Lane and others 1994). "Any dress restriction that infringes on a student's First Amendment rights must be justified by a showing that the student's attire materially disrupts school operations, infringes on the rights of others at the school, or otherwise interferes with any basic educational mission of the school" (Grantham 1994). To defend its action if challenged in court, a state must carefully define its interest when authorizing school districts to implement mandatory uniform policies. Policy-makers must be able to document that a problem exists (Paliokos and others). LIBERTY CLAIMS. Most challenges claiming a violation of the liberty interest have dealt with restrictions on hair length. Courts have been evenly split on whether a liberty interest exists. "Most courts that uphold the restrictions give the policy a presumption of constitutionality and place the burden on the defendant to show it is not rationally related to a legitimate school interest.... Those courts that strike down such regulations have found that schools impose unnecessary norms on students" (Paliokos and others). WHAT ARE SOME GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING POLICIES? Lane and others offer the following advice to policy-makers:Before implementing a dress-code or school-uniform policy, beable to justify the action by demonstrating the link between akind of dress and disruptive behavior; consult with a schoolattorney; and make sure the policy is enforceable and does notdiscriminate against racial/ethnic minorities. In regard to uniforms, Paliokos and others recommend that policy-makers address three key questions: Are the requirements legally defensible? Do they actually restore order? Are less restrictive dress codes a better alternative? For example, policy-makers can consider five alternatives ranging from least to most restrictive: 1. Do not institute a dress code. 2. Institute a dress code that outlines general goals, and let principals and local school officials formulate and implement policy at the grass-roots level. 3. Institute an itemized dress code that will be applied throughout the district. 4. Authorize a voluntary uniform policy. 5. Authorize a mandatory uniform policy with or without a clearly defined opt-out provision. Then policy-makers should decide whether to let schools choose their own uniforms and whether to offer financial help to low-income families (Paliokos and others). Whichever policy is chosen, successful implementation depends on developing positive perceptions among students and parents, making uniforms available and inexpensive, implementing dress-code/uniform policies in conjunction with other educational change strategies, allowing for some diversity in uniform components, involving parents and students in choice of uniforms and formulation of policy, recognizing cultural influences, and enforcing the rules evenly and fairly. Superintendent Cohn credits his district's success to a stable school board, supportive parents and community, resources to defend the policy, capable site administrators, and community philanthropic resources.

RESOURCES
"California Leads Nation in Public School Uniform Use." CALIFORNIA SCHOOL NEWS (March 31, 1997): 4. Caruso, Peter. "Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms." NASSP BULLETIN 8, 581 (September 1996): 83-88. EJ 532 294. Cohn, Carl A. "Mandatory School Uniforms." THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR 53, 2 (February 1996): 22-25. EJ 519 738. Cohn, Carl A., and Loren Siegal. "Should Students Wear Uniforms?" LEARNING 25, 2 (September/October 1996): 38-39. Grantham, Kimberly. "Restricting Student Dress in Public Schools." SCHOOL LAW BULLETIN 25, 1 (Winter 1994): 1-10. EJ 483 331. Kuhn, Mary Julia. "Student Dress Codes in the Public Schools: Multiple Perspectives in the Courts and Schools on the Same Issues." JOURNAL OF LAW AND EDUCATION 25, 1 (Winter 1996): 83-106. EJ 527 561. Lane, Kenneth E.; Stanley L. Schwartz; Michael D. Richardson; and Dennis W. VanBerum. "You Aren't What You Wear." THE AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 181, 3 (March 1994): 64-65. EJ 481 325. Loesch, Paul C. "A School Uniform Program That Works." PRINCIPAL 74, 4 (March 1995): 28, 30. EJ 502 869. Murray, Richard K. "The Impact of School Uniforms on School Climate." NASSP BULLETIN 81,593 (December 1997):106-12. Paliokas, Kathleen L.; Mary Hatwood Futrell; and Ray C. Rist. "Trying Uniforms On for Size." THE AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 183, 5 (May 1996): 32-35. EJ 524 358. [|student dress policies] [|thoughts and info] **IN FULL AGREEMENT?**Write us and let us post your thoughts about uniforms.


 * A parent writes:**

My child's school is currently discussing the possible implementation of a school uniform or a strict dress code. Initial community survey showed that 71% of parents are in favor of either a "uniform" or "strict dress code" in lieu of the current policy which is, essentially, no policy.

This is an elementary school in a predominantly white, middle class community. Violent behavior or gang related activity is not a concern. However, building a respect for school, teachers and other students is a major concern. Personally, my thoughts are that a uniform or strict dress code would have a beneficial overall impact on the learning environment by establishing, in the child's mind, that school is a special place that should be respected and taken seriously. Establishing this respect for school, teachers and other students needs to start in elementary school. Middle school, high school is too late.

Uniforms or a strict dress code is not the total solution to creating a better, more respectful student but, it appears to be a part of the solution. Too many kids in our society seem to lack respect for school and all that is represents. Parents need to intervene early and often to ensure that our kids build a healthy respect for themselves, other students and teachers. In general, I think parents need to take greater responsibililty for their child's education. We need to get much more involved in the public school system and demand accountability and change from stagnant educators and administators who, for whatever reason, are not motivated or lack the will to do what is in the best interests of all children.


 * A parent/teacher/researcher writes:**

I am a doctoral candidate preparing my dissertation on school uniforms. I found this site while "surfing" the web for research data on the very subject. Anyway, I work in a public school (middle grades) that implemented a school uniform/conservative dress code two years ago and, as both a parent (my two daughters attend there) and as a member of the faculty, I would like to share my experience(s) briefly with your readers.

The dress code: Khaki or navy blue pants, skirts, or shorts and white, navy, light blue, or yellow shirts with collars. Pants with belt loops must be worn with a belt (I've had students cut the loops off!) and shirts must be tucked in at all times unless in gym class. Parents can opt-out by sending their kids to another middle school in the district.

First, from the perspective of a parent: Pros--(a) clothing costs are cut almost in half no matter what the experts say. Been there; done that. My expenditures for school clothing decreased 45% to 50% the first year. Our dress policy allows any type of footwear insolong as the shoe has a strap on the heel. My daughters wear athletic shoes and those big, black shoes with large heels (they are cute) that seem to be in style at the moment. (b) No hassles in the morning about what to wear. By limiting the choices, you limit the fashion dilemmas. Cons--none that I can think of.

From the perspective of a teacher: Pros-- Its difficult to say if discipline has improved or not. This is a very small community school with generally well-behaved students, good parent/faculty rapport, and, moreover, two years ago when the school uniform policy went into effect, we also moved into a new, state-of-the-art building ($12 million worth) from an old building built in 1948. Thus, the new building may have had some intrinsic effect. But, overall, I would say that behavior //has// improved and would base my answer on knowing the normal environment/ambiance of this particular school.

Cons--(a) As a member of the faculty, you are constantly policing students about adhering to the school uniform policy whether it be a belt, an untucked shirt, or whatever. This can wear you down after a few months. The students know how to play that little game (didn't we, too) and many push the limits daily. (b) The argument about setting students on an even, socioeconomic level by having them dress the same does not ring true. Although, all students may wear khakis, some wear Tommy Hilfiger khakis that cost twice as much as JC Penney and the like, etc. You can still distinquish the haves from the have-nots even if its //less// obvious.

Suggestions/Advice: This may not be possible for many districts, but I would have to suggest that if a school was thinking about implementing a uniform dress code policy that it consider making it a true uniform in the sense that all students wear the same thing. This would end the problems of constantly deciding how many shades Navy blue can be and the proverbial question that can not be answered in today's world: Is khaki a color or a name brand or both? And if we wear purple trousers with the name Khaki on it, aren't we following school dress code policy? Gads! Perhaps insisting the uniforms be purchased from the school store would also help since you're selling the exact same brand name brand and, moreover, schools that buy in bulk can receive discounts and pass these savings on to parents. Another plus here is that the school could covertly subsidize disadvantaged students (e.g., those on public assistance, free school lunch, etc.) by giving them uniforms paid for by profits from a modest mark-up on the uniforms in general.

A Last word: Precede with caution. Involve your stakeholders (parents) in the final decisions on implementing a dress code. Spend a year "talking it up" and giving it a positive spin.Also consider some perks for the students, for instance, have one day each grading term when students can wear their normal attire (Call it Fourth Friday, or something like that).On that day, have some rewards in place, like a small party or a afternoon on the playground with ice cream. Create a festive atmosphere on this day. Sometimes, you need to play, even if its at school. FROM RACHEL KOLIAS

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION?
Opponents contend that school-uniform policies infringe upon students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; interfere with students' natural tendency to experiment with their identities; are tools of administrative power and social control; offer a piecemeal approach to issues of racial and economic injustice; and may discriminate against students from minority backgrounds (Caruso 1996, Cohn and Siegal 1996). Some believe uniforms will not erase social class lines, because policies do not apply to other items that can be used to convey status, such as jewelry, backpacks, and bikes. Uniforms may not be feasible in high schools, because older students are more independent. Others argue that it is wrong to make children's right to a public-school education contingent upon compliance with a uniform policy (Caruso, Cohn and Siegal).

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES TO DATE?
Most preliminary findings come from the Long Beach (California) Unified School District, the first U.S. public school system to require uniforms for elementary and middle school students. Before implementing its policy in September 1994, the school district required approval from two-thirds of the parents (Caruso 1996). Long Beach Superintendent Carl A. Cohn reported that during the first year suspensions decreased by 32 percent, school crime by 36 percent, fighting by 51 percent, and vandalism by 18 percent (Cohn). At Whittier Elementary, attendance rates have risen each year since the policy went into effect, reaching a high of 96 percent (Caruso). Schools in Chicago, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Virginia have made similar claims (Caruso). Parents have responded favorably to uniform policies. In Long Beach, only 500 parents petitioned to opt their children out of the mandate. In a national marketing survey conducted by Lands End, a Wisconsin-based clothing catalog company, respondents agreed that a uniform policy "could help reduce problems associated with dress," and most felt the price was "about the same or less than the cost of a regular school wardrobe" (CALIFORNIA SCHOOL NEWS). California requires school districts to subsidize the cost of uniforms for low-income students. A 1996 survey of 306 middle school students in the Charleston, South Carolina, County School District found that school uniforms affected student perceptions of school climate. Students in a middle school with a uniform policy had a significantly higher perception of their school's climate than did students in a school without a uniform policy (Murray 1997). Student reactions range from delight at not having to decide what to wear to displeasure at looking like a "nerd." It is important, therefore, to include students as well as parents in the uniform-selection process.

WHAT LEGAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED?
To date, most legal challenges to dress-code policies have been based on either (1) claims that the school has infringed on the student's First Amendment right to free expression or (2) claims under the Fourteenth Amendment that the school has violated the student's liberty to control his or her personal appearance (Paliokos and others 1996). FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS. The clash between students' rights of free expression and the responsibility of public-school authorities to provide a safe learning environment is the central issue in the debate over dress-code policy. In developing a ban on gang-like attire, whether through implementing a dress-code or a school-uniform policy, administrators should ask: (1) Is there a direct link between the targeted attire and disruption of the school environment? and (2) Is the prohibition specific enough to target the threatening attire without infringing on students' rights? (Lane and others 1994). "Any dress restriction that infringes on a student's First Amendment rights must be justified by a showing that the student's attire materially disrupts school operations, infringes on the rights of others at the school, or otherwise interferes with any basic educational mission of the school" (Grantham 1994). To defend its action if challenged in court, a state must carefully define its interest when authorizing school districts to implement mandatory uniform policies. Policy-makers must be able to document that a problem exists (Paliokos and others). LIBERTY CLAIMS. Most challenges claiming a violation of the liberty interest have dealt with restrictions on hair length. Courts have been evenly split on whether a liberty interest exists. "Most courts that uphold the restrictions give the policy a presumption of constitutionality and place the burden on the defendant to show it is not rationally related to a legitimate school interest.... Those courts that strike down such regulations have found that schools impose unnecessary norms on students" (Paliokos and others). WHAT ARE SOME GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING POLICIES? Lane and others offer the following advice to policy-makers:Before implementing a dress-code or school-uniform policy, beable to justify the action by demonstrating the link between akind of dress and disruptive behavior; consult with a schoolattorney; and make sure the policy is enforceable and does notdiscriminate against racial/ethnic minorities. In regard to uniforms, Paliokos and others recommend that policy-makers address three key questions: Are the requirements legally defensible? Do they actually restore order? Are less restrictive dress codes a better alternative? For example, policy-makers can consider five alternatives ranging from least to most restrictive: 1. Do not institute a dress code. 2. Institute a dress code that outlines general goals, and let principals and local school officials formulate and implement policy at the grass-roots level. 3. Institute an itemized dress code that will be applied throughout the district. 4. Authorize a voluntary uniform policy. 5. Authorize a mandatory uniform policy with or without a clearly defined opt-out provision. Then policy-makers should decide whether to let schools choose their own uniforms and whether to offer financial help to low-income families (Paliokos and others). Whichever policy is chosen, successful implementation depends on developing positive perceptions among students and parents, making uniforms available and inexpensive, implementing dress-code/uniform policies in conjunction with other educational change strategies, allowing for some diversity in uniform components, involving parents and students in choice of uniforms and formulation of policy, recognizing cultural influences, and enforcing the rules evenly and fairly. Superintendent Cohn credits his district's success to a stable school board, supportive parents and community, resources to defend the policy, capable site administrators, and community philanthropic resources. ** ardware & Software Glitches - ** As we all know, computers have a habit of fritzing out at the worst possible moment. The possibility of hardware and software problems alone might be enough to drive less technically experienced students away from distance learning. ** Less Institutional Name Recognition - ** While distance learning is still evolving, a degree or certificate issued by a distance learning program may not be as valued by potential employers as one issued by a university with a name familiar to a prospective employer. But don't despair, many universities wit h highly recognizable names are seeing the value of distance learning and are beginning to create their own distance education programs.
 * Less Financial Aid - **Financial aid is not often available to independent learning students. Students can sometimes get aid from employers, unions, and federal aid but institutional aid is usually reserved for "traditional" students.
 * Limited Opportunities for Expression - ** People will always talk faster than they can type. Typing, as a medium of communication, also loses some of the nonverbal communication that often accompanies verbal communication. This nonverbal communication can often be as important as words themselves. Consequently, many nuances of a writer's intent are lost through typing.
 * Limited Opportunity for Presentations - ** Most people dread public speaking with a vehemence. Giving a face-to-face presentation to a real audience is often an anxiety filled, but valuable experience. With the use of online distance learning programs, presentation skills are not an important part of the overall course. This is because the limited bandwidth of the internet doesn't make such presentations practical. Thus a lot of good practice in public speaking and presentations is lost. We would suggest enrolling in a public speaking/presenting course at your local college/community school to practice this important skill, in addition to your online learning.
 * Limited Personal Interaction - ** While the internet may foster increased interaction through forums and chat rooms you may miss those lively classroom discussions that bring up issues in a class that you might have been wondering about yourself and just haven't asked about yet. You might also have fewer opportunities for developing lifelong friendships online than in a traditional classroom situation.

http://www.brgs.org.uk/about.asp

[][|The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every individual’s freedom of speech: his or her right to express artistic, religious, and political viewpoints. In the 1970’s, however, several high school students were disciplined for coming to school wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. These students successfully took their free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which famously noted in its Tinker opinion that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court set out a framework for dealing with students’ free speech rights in school: that students have a First Amendment right to express themselves so long as that expression is not disruptive to the school day.Disruption is the right standard – it means that students are able to express themselves so long as lessons can continue uninterrupted. Clothing is precisely the type of passive, nondisruptive medium that allows students to share their thoughts without interfering with educational opportunities. Because students’ self-expression on clothing generally does not disrupt class, uniforms are an inefficient and unnecessary bureaucracy that requires school officials to be worried about what everyone is wearing. Instead, school officials should only be concerned with clothing that is actually disruptive – which both dress codes and simple common sense are more than adequate to handle.**Schools Should Teach Constitutional Values**The Constitution is so important to our daily lives that we ask public officials – and in many states, public school teachers – to take an oath to uphold the Constitution as a requirement of holding an office of public trust. Our public schools are more than just an educational necessity – they are our one shot, as a society, at inculcating the most important American values for the future citizens and leaders of our country. And perhaps no value is more crucial, and more uniquely American, than diversity of thought and expression, as reflected in that empowering first guarantee the American people saw fit to include in our Bill of Rights: the protection of the fundamental freedoms of speech, religious thought, press, or assembly.In conflict with the First Amendment, school uniform policies create instead an environment of sterilized uniformity scrubbed of the diversity so prized by our founding fathers. Perhaps more importantly, the façade of homogeneity in no way reflects the real world that students will enter immediately upon graduation from high school. In the real world, as in our democracy, there are conflicts of opinion in every conversation. There are messages – commercial, political, religious – shouted from every street corner and billboard. And there are beliefs and passions of every stripe. Our First Amendment encourages and protects individual expression and ensures conflict and disagreement. No one has ever said the First Amendment is easy or neat – on the contrary, it produces a glorious and legally-protected cacophony of ideas unthinkable in almost every other country worldwide. But the complicated nature of the First Amendment does not at all mean that we shy away from imparting its spirit to each and every student. Instead, our schools should embrace the First Amendment as a legacy of freedom that each student has the honor and duty to uphold. Forcing students to dress and look alike flies in the face of the diversity of thought and rugged individualism that are the bedrock of our nation and our Constitution.**School Uniforms Eliminate a Crucial Form of Self-Expression**Unlike a street corner, a sidewalk, or a public park, the school setting does not offer many opportunities for self-expression that do not disrupt the school day. Generally, students cannot freely post or distribute literature without school officials’ permission. Sandwich boards clog the hallways, rushed conversations must end when the bell rings, and bullhorns are pretty much out of the question. Students are left with one blank canvas on which to paint their thoughts, emotions, and politics – their clothes. Whether a student chooses a religious tee-shirt, a campaign button, an all-black ensemble, or a tuxedo, he or she is sending a distinct message. Unlike a bullhorn, this message is silent and passive. Clothing subtly informs the observer who a student is, or wants to be seen as, individually.School officials are likely to argue that school is exclusively for learning, and that self-expression is for after-school hours. But the two simply aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, the differences among student outfits are fertile grounds for identifying their likes and dislikes, figuring out if they identify as “goth” or “preppy,” tracking changes in hygiene or dress that may reflect a student’s psychological state, and showcasing the breadth of choice and diversity among young people. These are tools that teachers and other students can use to increase the educational experience, by getting to know students as fully-formed individuals, and talking about divergent socioeconomic and cultural norms. Furthermore, allowing students to choose their clothing is an empowering message from the schools that a student is a maturing person who is entitled to the most basic self-determination. In a freer learning environment, students begin with a sense of self-worth – rather than as identical captives without options. Giving kids a choice to express themselves not only acknowledges their individuality but creates the possibility for a relationship of mutual respect. So long as this parade of choices does not interrupt the school day, schools should be interested in nurturing, rather than standardizing, student expression.**School Uniforms are Ineffective**The effectiveness of school uniforms is the subject of a raging debate, and school officials routinely claim that their own positive experiences justify the imposition of uniforms. However, such anecdotal certainty is not borne out in the largest empirical, controlled study that has been done. This 1998 study completed at Notre Dame University examined the effect of school uniforms on “attendance, disciplinary behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement.” The two authors, professors of sociology, debunked prior reports of uniforms’ effectiveness as anecdotal. More importantly, they found that teachers’ perceptions of their students once in uniform changed greatly, and that they viewed uniformed students as better-behaved, smarter, and more successful. This perception, however, was only in the minds of the teachers – statistically, the researchers found that student uniforms had no positive statistical correlation with absenteeism, drug use, attitudes toward school, or student achievement. Strikingly, the authors found only one statistically significant correlation – a negative effect on student achievement by tenth graders forced to wear uniforms.This finding implies that some students, when forced into a standardized uniform, are negatively impacted to the point that their school work suffers. Overall, what the study shows is that while school teachers and administrators are often convinced of the effectiveness of uniforms, such an impression is the result of their own prejudices rather than actual changes in behavior. Perhaps, then, the correct solution is to work on correcting administrators’ clothing-based bias, not reducing students’ rights in order to compensate for the socioeconomic assumptions of the generations above them.] =**Link:**= []

Opponents counter that such measures suppress student individuality and personal freedom. They argue that students could become alienated if school officials close off one of their few avenues of self-identification and expression. They also question whether restrictive dress codes really make schools safer. Many parents argue that these restrictive policies also infringe on the parents’ freedom in rearing their children.

Ironically, both opponents and proponents of student dress codes point to the same U.S. Supreme Court ruling to support their positions — //[|Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]// (1969). In this famous decision, the Court ruled 7-2 that public school officials could not censor student expression — the wearing of black armbands, in that case — unless they could reasonably forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others.

ONLINE SCHOOLS • Most online programs don’t have the fun elements of traditional high schools such as prom, senior day, graduation, weird hair day, etc.
 * Cons:**

• Some subjects (such as writing and math) may be hard to master without a teacher present.

• Many people find it challenging to focus on completing work when there isn’t an actual teacher there to encourage them on a daily basis.

• Some students become isolated or anti-social.

• If your online school is not accredited, your transcripts probably won’t be accepted by businesses and universities.

• Unless you find an accredited charter school, you can expect to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars on tuition, curriculum, and computer equipment.

[|disadvantages]

Disadvantages
Naturally, most online programs don't have all of the fun elements of high schools: prom, senior day, graduation, etc. If losing these aspects of traditional high school doesn't bother you, there is still another concern along the same lines-isolation. Some online students may develop anti-social feelings. Make sure your online high school has forums where other students and you can chat. If the school doesn't offer forums, see if they have any recommendations to avoid feeling cut-off from peers. Another consideration is that many people find it a challenge to focus on completing work when no an actual teacher is present to encourage them on a daily basis. Let's face it, all of us need some encouragement every now and again. However, teachers serve as more than slave drivers, they are also the ones you should go to if you have problems with your assignments. Clearly, this poses a problem for online students. Some subjects, such as English and math, may be hard to comprehend without a teacher present. Finally, be aware that online schools that are not accredited produce transcripts that probably won't be accepted by businesses and universities. In addition, unless you find an accredited charter school, you might need to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for tuition, curriculum and computer equipment.

[|disadvantages and warnings]

**Disadvantages**
> Another disadvantage of online schools is the technology involved. It just isn't available to everyone. The world is rapidly becoming more and more connected by modern technology, but some people still do not have ready access to a computer and Internet connection. And many of those who do have the required equipment are too intimidated by it to take advantage of online schools. > Learning through online schools restricts interaction between teacher and student. This is a disadvantage for those students who need the immediate feedback that such interaction provides
 * 1) Being a successful student at an online school requires self-discipline. This is a disadvantage for students who have difficulty with time management and procrastination. While being able to set your own schedule can be an advantage, it can also be a disadvantage. Some students need the structure of traditional schools.

To create a page...
>
 * 1) Click on the edit button [[image:edit.jpg]]
 * 2) Type the title of the page. Use a descriptive title not just "notes 1."
 * 3) Highlight the text and click the link button in the menu bar.
 * 4) In the Page Name text box **__add your name to the end of the title of the page__** and press add link.
 * 1) This will create a hyperlink to a page that doesn't exist. When you go to the page you will be prompted to edit this new page. **__Make sure that you choose the Notes page template.__**