Luise+Armendariz

//Tinker// was all about freedom of expression. The students in //Tinker// merely wore black arm bands. They did not disrupt school activities in any other way. The actions of the students are often used to distinguish the right of speech and expression for students from the rules that can govern those rights. Again the distinction hinges on the impact of the expression on the educational process. In //New Rider v Board// (414 US 1097 [1973]), a pair of male Pawnee Indian students were suspended from school for wearing long hair in the tradition of their ancestors. The suspension was for violation of a school rule which forbade the wearing of hair that extended past the collar or ears. The Court refused to hear the case, but Justices Douglas and Marshall wrote a stinging dissent of the denial, "Petitioners were not wearing their hair in a desired style simply because it was the fashionable or accepted style, or because they somehow felt the need to register an inchoate discontent with the general malaise they might have perceived in our society. They were in fact attempting to broadcast a clear and specific message to their fellow students and others — their pride in being Indian." Douglas wrote another dissent in a hair-length case for //Olff v East Side Union// (404 US 1042 [1972]). No other cases appear to have been decided by the Court on this issue, and circuit courts have made conflicting rulings. =My Notes Causes Discipline Problems: = Some students reject any rules. Forcing them to wear school uniforms only aggravates their rebelious spirit. They alter their school uniform by tightening, widening, shortening, or lengthening them, and teachers are given the impossible task of policing the students on a daily basis.
 * Violations of Free Expression**

Read more: [] Under Creative Commons License: [|Attribution] Little or No Relationship to Academics: Opponents insist that their is no credible evidence that school uniforms improve school discipline or promote higher academic acheivement. The principal argument is that some great students are terrible dressers. Dress does not necessarily improve learning.

Read more: [] Under Creative Commons License: __[|Attribution]__


 * CONS:**
 * • reduces the students’ responsibility in making mature choices about what to wear**
 * • lessens opportunities for students to learn how to deal with others who are different from**
 * themselves**
 * • minimizes students’ First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression (although the**
 * courts have tended to uphold uniform policies)**
 * • decreases the students’ opportunities to believe the playing field is leveled and safe**
 * because of other items not covered in the policy such as jewelry, jackets, backpacks, etc.**
 * • interferes with clothing worn as part of one’s religious beliefs such as a yarmulke**
 * • cuts down on attention in classroom and possible involvement in activities because there**
 * will still be cliqués**
 * • allows administrators to have more power over students due to controlling what students**
 * will wear**
 * • spends more on clothing because they need to have different sets for school and out of**
 * school**

Cons
 * School uniforms surely curb the self expression of a child. Sociologists believe that it may lead to inappropriate ways of expression by children, such as improper use of make up and jewelry.
 * Another reason argued against school uniforms is that they deprive the children of their individuality. The stress on a uniform dress code in school opposes the spirit of unity in diversity and its celebration. It is even claimed to restrict socialization, a vital aspect of human nature.
 * In comparison to civil dress, school uniforms prove to be futile and wasteful once the child is out of school.
 * Another ill effect of school uniform is that it deprives the children the comfort, which one experiences on wearing different type of clothing, as per individual choice. This discomfort might adversely reflect upon the academic performance of the child.

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. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html <<<--- THIS IS REALLY GOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

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. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformRay.html

n
When you fill a school with hundreds of students all dressed exactly alike, identifying any of them at a glance might be quite difficult. What happens during a school crisis, however? Hopefully, schools already have a safety plan in place to deal with any crisis that might come along. Still, what happens when the only identifying characteristics you might have are the clothing a child is wearing? For example, if a student threatens another student or actually injures someone else, how easy would it be for that student to slip into the crowd if he or she is wearing the exact same clothing as everyone else?  __[|School Uniform Sale]__ - Girls, Boys, Teens, All Sizes Polos, Shorts, Skirts & Pants [|www.shoptludrop.com] __[|Against School Uniforms]__ - Find more sources/options for what your looking for [|www.webcrawler.com] __[|Lands' End Uniforms]__ - Unify Your Team & Enhance Brand Strategy. Order Custom Uniforms! [|www.LandsEnd.com]
 * [|Ads by Google]**

Fit
Unfortunately, just because you require students to purchase and wear school uniforms doesn't mean that every student will buy uniforms that fit them correctly. For some, a uniform may just be a hand-me-down for an older sibling. For others, purchasing a uniform that fits too tightly or too loosely may just be another way to circumvent the system and protest the requirements without actually breaking the dress code. While this might seem insignificant, it can create widespread problems once other students follow suit. There will always be those who break the rules regardless of what they are required to wear, and issues like sagging pants or short skirts will continue to prevail even when uniforms are the required form of dress. 

Cost
One of the most compelling arguments against uniforms involves cost. While parents will certainly only have to purchase the basic elements of the uniform, they'll still need two or three changes of each clothing piece. Uniform pieces may cost much more than a simple t-shirt and jeans as well. The cost of outfitting a child doesn't end there, however, since kids still need additional clothes to wear outside of school, including casual wear and dressier items for church or special occasions. Another problem surrounds a family's ability to purchase uniforms. Some children might only be able to afford used uniforms, while other may purchase top of the line items, thus socio-economic issues aren't automatically eliminated with uniform requirements. 

Individual Expression
Finally, one of the most serious negative effects of school uniforms is the inhibition of freedom of expression. As schools often focus on a celebration of diversity as they attempt to educate children on an appreciation of different cultures, eliminating a student's right to dress as an individual is often seen as a threat to individual rights.  __**Notes From Rachel**__ = **Those disgusting School Uniforms (B)** //Abstract: This article was originally written in October 1998, after a conclusion by the Queensland Ombudsman revived the debate about school uniforms in Australia. What are the argument for and against school uniforms? Are school uniforms merely advocated as an instrument that assists conformity to rules and obedience to authority - in violation with our rights?// =

Back in October 1998, Queensland Ombudsman Fred Albietz concluded that it was illegal for schools to force students to wear uniforms. The case in question only dealt with 'socks', but it sets an important precedent regarding all school dress codes. Fred Albietz found that there is nothing in regulations that makes school uniforms compulsory, so parents and students who dislike uniforms are justified in ignoring 'undue' pressure from schools, not only regarding the common //'pull up your socks!'// ritual, but also regarding hairstyles, skirt length, etc. Not suprisingly, the Queensland Teacher's Union promptly responded that the Education Act should be changed to give school principals the legal backing to enforce dress codes. Interestingly, Education Minister, Mr Dean Wells, has refused to act. A spokesman said he would wait until he had heard from all relevant parties. As before, the opinion of the magazine Optionality is not likely to be regarded as relevant by such people. But what is more important than the legal argument is that it has revived the discussion about what is in essence a moral issue. As expected, schools felt obliged to respond. One school listed five arguments why students should wear uniforms: Safety ('infiltration by outsiders'), Pride ('school image'), Equity ('all students are equal'), Ease ('students do not have to think about what to wear') and Training ('when you are employed, you are likely to have to wear a uniform'). In a typical school fashion, this school takes a semi-scientific, lecturing approach. A list of arguments is presented, to make it look as if the situation has been exhaustively analysed and all arguments have been weighed against each other, leaving nothing to debate and resulting in an end-conclusion in which five arguments remain. But of course, the school uniforms issue is first of all a "rights" issue. And secondly, there has hardly been any research on the impact of school uniforms. By going straight into the technicalities of arguments about the practicalities of school uniforms, the advocates of school uniforms seek to wave away the most important arguments. Indeed, the very first concern should be what uniforms mean in regard to our rights! Aren't schools supposed to teach students the importance of our rights? Are schools putting themselves above the law? Are schools teaching students that decisions should be made without debate and without prior research into the matter? Doesn't the approach of many schools constitute a blatant disrespect for the rights of students of freedom of expression through their choice of clothing, and consequently an attack on all of our rights? Even if we do look into each argument on its own logic, does any of the arguments put forward in favor of school uniforms make sense? Does any of the arguments in favor of school uniforms hold? Let's look into each one of them point by point. The 'training' argument says that //when you are employed, you are likely to have to wear a uniform//. Is this true? What are the odds that children will wear a uniform later in life? Typically, the occupations where people have to wear uniforms are the lower paid jobs, nothing to look forward to, really. Generally, the more educated people are, the less they wear uniforms later in life. Look at teachers, they don't wear uniforms! Well-paid work tends to reject uniformity, and for good reason, the demands of the future include qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, individuality, originality, a spontaneous personality, being a self-starter, taking initiatives, being able to cope with change, etc. And even the people who do wear a uniform later in life are unlikely to accept such a silly costume as a school uniform. Only for prostitutes is the school uniform an obligatory part of their professional wardrobe (and one may wonder why). What is the logic behind forcing children in uniforms? That children have to get used to wearing a uniform, just in the unfortunate case that they will end up in such a job later in life? If we turn around the same 'logic', students who are used to wearing uniforms would be insufficiently prepared for plain-clothed work, if they did not wear plain clothes at school all the time. Similarly, students would not be able to deal with people who didn't wear uniforms. It just doesn't make sense. There is one deeper argument. It goes like this: //students waering uniforms will be accustomed to taking a servile attitude which will help them find work later in life.// Of course, the very opposite could be argued with more reason. Does success in future demand a servile attitude? Or is it more helpful to be creative, have an spontaneous and open personality, an inquisitive mind, be a self-starter who talks things over, who has an independent mind searching for new ideas to make things work? See? Examine an argument that supposedly favored school uniforms more closely, and it either doesn't make sense or it turns into an argument against school uniforms. That's why schools who seek to introduce uniforms typcially prefer to do so without any debate on the issue! Anyway, let's continue with the next argument. The 'equity' argument goes like this: //If children wear uniforms, they do not notice differences between children from rich and from poor families.// This 'equity' argument is often put forward by State Schools. The reason for this may be that it is a purely socialist argument and it may be rejected for this reason alone. In a democratic country, school should not indoctrinate children with a specific political ideology, especially not a government-funded school. Interestingly, private schools typically are even more fanatical about uniforms, but they are less inclined to use the 'equity' argument. Anyway, even as a socialist argument, it does not make much sense. School uniforms may make all students look alike. But why do the teachers not wear the same uniforms? Clearly, school does not like any confusion as to who is the teacher and who is the student. The master-slave relationship that is so obviously present at school is deliberately magnified by uniforms that emphasize this difference. The teacher is allowed to dress casually, while the student has to wear silly clothes intended to make the student look stupid. Furthermore, there are often different uniforms for those in higher grades than for those in lower grades, just like in the military a superior officer wears a less silly hat. This creates class differences. Some will argue that this merely reflects existing differences. But the point is that if this were accurate, it constituted an argument against uniformity. Moreover, school itself creates class differences. Class is a trademark, if not an invention of school. Children are grouped together in classes according to age and often according to gender and to perceived academic performance. Because parents want their children to mix with children of their 'own class', they carefully select the neighborhood where they are going to live. Houses close to private schools are often substantially more expensive than similar houses close to state schools. On the street, children are identified by their uniform. //'Oh, you come from that poor school, you dummy!'// is an example of what children say to each other when they look at each other's uniform. And even in the classroom, uniforms only accentuate differences in length, hair color and other physical characteristics. Children consequently judge each other by their physical appearances. One can argue whether it were better if children judged each other by their clothes instead. From a financial point of view, the socialist argument does not make sense either. School uniforms are expensive, by their nature they are produced in limited numbers, they have to be special. Furthermore, school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, because if they were made of pure cotton, they would fade after a few washings and there would be color differences between the uniforms of various pupils, which goes against the very idea of uniformity. Therefore, school uniforms are far more expensive than the cheap cotton clothing people normally like to wear. The situation is also prone to exploitation by unfair trade practices, unhealthy schemes, favoratism and cronyism, e.g. deals in which secret bribes are paid for the privilege of exclusively and 'locally' producing and selling such school uniforms. One pays the price for not being able to choose the often cheap imports from countries such as China and India. Some parents argue that because of school uniforms, they do not have to buy many clothes for their children, which saves them time and money. But most children will have plain clothes next to their school uniform. The idea of a school uniform is that students wear the uniform at school, but do not wear the uniform, say, at a disco or other events outside school. This effectively means that children will need a double set of clothing. The 'ease' argument says that //school uniforms make it easier for students to choose what they are to wear at school//. But is it really a virtue of the school uniform that the 'choice' is made so easy? It would be just as 'easy' for children to decide what to wear, if they only had, say, jeans and T-shirts in their cupboards. This kind of 'choice' has nothing to do with wearing uniforms. If there are only jeans and T-shirts in the cupboard, the child will have to wear jeans and T-shirts. The choice is easy, because there is no alternative. If there were only a ski-outfit in the cupboard, the child had to wear the ski-outfit and 'choices' were equally 'easy'. The point is that the 'choice' is not so much made 'easy' by virtue of uniformity, no, the choice is easy because there is no choice. If the kid-next-door happens to wear the same clothes, say jeans, that didn't make the choice any easier for either of the children. One only has choice if there is something to choose from. The real question is if choice is good for children. Taking away children's right to choose what to wear does not make live any easier, it just makes children accustomed to conformity, to following orders and walking in line without thinking, without making a choice. This creates a huge amount of psychological problems later in life, it reduces the opportunity to get good work, it reduces the overall quality of life, in some respects it is a form of child abuse to systematically deny children choice. As mentioned before, school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, as this keeps its color better. Apart from being more expensive, polycotton is also very hot, which is a problem in hot climates. Special sun-protective clothing is often too expensive, or cannot stand the frequent washing necessary as the kids have to wear the same clothing every day. Uniforms tend to be uncomfortable - by nature a uniform is a straightjacket that has been compromised in many ways in order to fit everybody. Uniforms are far from easy in many respects. The 'cost' argument is obviously a false argument. School uniforms do not keep the cost of clothing down, because quite obviously all students also need plain clothes next to their uniform. When compared to T-shirts and jeans, the school uniform is unlikely to be the cheap, comfortable, easy to use. Private schools are even less likely to push the 'cost' argument, they deliberately choose for a rather expensive outfit as a way to distinguish the students from 'poorer' schools. Obviously, the 'cost' argument is inconsistent with the 'pride' argument that wants students to 'look well presented' even if this comes at an extra cost. The very point of uniforms is that it is something that not everyone wears, and this exclusivity obviously comes at a cost. The 'pride' argument goes like this: //if students dress lousy, the school as a whole gets a bad name, which diminishes the opportunity for all students to get a good job//. Of course, this is just an argument against dirty or otherwise less attractive clothes. Teachers may argue that school uniforms set a clear standard of what the students are to wear, but school uniforms may just as well get dirty as any other clothes and school uniforms may just as well tear apart after a fight or a fall. Having school uniforms does no necessarily make it easier to see whether the clothes are dirty or ragged. Uniformity in itself is nothing to be proud about. Note that students are not supposed to wear the uniforms at discos or other out-of-school events. If the students were really supposed to be proud about their school, why are they only supposed to wear the uniform at school? Note also that universities rarely demand students to wear uniforms, yet few seem to be worried that this will make the students unemployable. The 'safety' argument is that //school uniforms make it more difficult for unwelcome outsiders to infiltrate the school grounds//. But is 'safety' the real reason behind compulsory school uniforms? State schools are typically huge with large numbers of teachers and other staff. Teachers are frequently ill or otherwise absent, requiring relief-teachers to step in. The larger the school, the more difficult it is to know all individual teachers and maintenance staff who might wonder down through the buildings. Students will not be surprised to see an unfamiliar plain-clothed grown-up person on the school-grounds. They will not even be surprised if such a person seems lost. If safety really was an important issue, then why are teachers, maintenance staff and visiting parents not required to similarly wear the school uniform? Many people come and leave the school grounds by car every day. Cars can often be driven right into the middle of the school grounds, while it is virtually impossible to spot whether the occupants are wearing uniforms or not. School uniforms in fact make it very easy for someone with bad intentions to sneak in, disguised as a legitimate school student. Typically, anyone can buy second-hand uniforms at the school or at nearby shops. At a school with a thousand students, there may be some 100 adults working on an average day on the school grounds, with the same amount of cars parked on the school grounds. This figure may rise at times when people involved in frequent construction and maintenance of buildings, equiopment and grounds and the surrounding roads are included. The number of adults working at the school pales in comparison with the many parents, guardians and other people who visit the school. Parents are typically told to collect their children outside the gates, yet on an average day, there may still be some one hundred 'visitors' walking on the school grounds. Such 'strangers' may be obliged to wear a 'visitor's badge', but they still have to walk to an administration building first to get one. Another safety argument is that school children could be more easily identified while on excursions. But does this really increase safety? Uniforms make it easier for teachers to check if all children are still there, i.e. by counting the number of kids. But uniforms also make it easier for people with bad intentions to spot and target children who are at risk of losing contact with the group. Whatever way one looks at it, it seems that the danger is created not so much by the absence of uniforms, but by the way school operates. School puts thirty-odd children together in the care of one teacher. Look at the hundreds of cars circling around the school twice a day, trying to find parking places. Apart from the risk of traffic accidents, this havoc makes it easy for someone with bad intentions to follow a child and drag this child inside a car. Even if bystanders notice screaming, they may think it is a case of a parent disciplining an obstinate child. The uniform identifies the child walking down the road as a target who is alone, on the way home, unaccompanied. Children without a uniform seem less at risk, as they are likely to be brothers or sisters who are picking up a uniformed student. What kind of people are school uniforms supposed to protect the students from? Rapists, pedophiles, street gangs and other bullies? Why would they go to a place where so many people can spot their face and identify them to police? They are more likely to attack a student who is walking home alone. Or drag a student over the fence from outside the school grounds. The uniform makes the student an easily identifiable and predictable target walking down the same road every day at the same time. Do uniforms really make it more safe for students at school? What kind of people are likely to 'infiltrate' school grounds? Students who have been expelled for beating up other students could be regarded as unwelcome visitors. But as such students are rarely required to hand over their uniform, the uniform does not seem to stop them from coming back, it in fact makes it easier for them to return. Is there any research that concludes that schools without uniforms have a significantly higher incidence of unwelcome visitors? In some countries such as the Netherlands, schools rarely prescribe school uniforms. Are schools in the Netherlands therefore less safe? If this really was such an important issue, one would expect a lot of research to be readily available within the education system on this issue. So where is this research into this supposed correlation between safety and school uniforms? Why do these educational institutes, who are otherwise so keen to teach students the value of scientific research, typically base their decision to introduce school uniforms on a lack of scientific research into the impact of uniforms? Some research data can be found at [|School_Uniforms] at Geocities. Newspaper articles typically mention school-related violence and it seems that in most cases the attackers were students, perhaps fully in uniforms. Anyway, the attackers are typically not plain-clothed outsiders that planned to infiltrate schools! One organization that has done some research on this issue is WHEN, the World Home Education Network. WHEN's conclusion was that school as an institution was the cause for a lot of associated violence. The danger comes from within the system, not from outside! In the US, where schools generally have a free-dress policy, many schools are considering introducing uniforms. However, the US situation differs substantially from the Australian one. One argument used in the discussion in the US is the prevention of theft, especially of expensive footwear. But this is a slightly different argument than the safety argument. One might just as well forbid students to wear expensive shoes. Note that the 'boaters', so common at Australian schools, are quite expensive. In fact, the whole school uniform is quite expensive, as discussed before. The main argument in the US is, however, that schools want to prevent violence. Schools want to prevent students from dressing up in gang colors, and subsequently fight out gang wars at school. Fortunately, Australian cities are not as infested with the gang mentality one can see in many US cities. But putting students in uniforms actually nurtures that very gang mentality that parents like to protect their children from. If one wants to prevent gangs from operating at schools, one will have to concentrate on that issue. Dressing students up in uniforms may actually achieve the very opposite result, it gives students the idea that they have to be part of a gang. The arguments in favor of school uniforms, including the argument that 'school uniforms contributed to safety', seem dreamed up in order to retrospectively justify the introduction of school uniforms. Indeed, school uniforms are typically introduced without a thorough analysis or even debate of the arguments. It was a lie that the Berlin Wall was built to keep bad people out, yet this was the official argument. Of course, everyone knew that it was built to keep people in! So, does safety come with more law, order, discipline and school uniforms? Or does safety come with more responsible attitude? And what attitude does come with school uniforms? Soldiers dress in uniforms. Dictators are typically surrounded by uniformed people. During World War II, the first thing that happened to the unfortunate people who were put into concentration camps, was that they were dressed in striped clothes and their hair was shaven off. The SS tattoed its members, just like violent gangs tend to require their members to wear specific tatoes, colors and patches. The so-called 'pride' with which gang members 'show their colors' is supposed to scare off other gangs that could intrude into 'their territory'. The uniform is asw much a symbol of violence, as it is of discipline, and the sheer sight of uniforms can provoke and attract violence. Uniforms are not the answer to concerns about safety, as uniforms can personify violence. Parents who are concerned about safety should tell their children to stay away from uniforms! Police, security guards and the military may all be very disciplined, but there's no denial that they have a strong focus on violence. Perhaps the orange robes of the Hara Krishnas should be the choice of clothing for those concerned about violence. Let's face it, school uniforms do not make sense whatever way one looks at it. Most school uniforms seem deliberately designed to make children look silly. School uniforms are both symbols and tools of humiliation. Candy-striped clown suits, silly hats, wide shorts that expose the genitals and short ties spring to mind. School uniforms - together with shaven heads and other dress codes - are symbols and instruments of humiliation and imprisonment. The idea is that students cannot easily walk away from school without being immediately identified by the collaborating general public, apprehended and handed over to their school for punishment. Yes, isn't it amazing how many adults believe that kids belong at school, just like prisoners belong in prison? And just like prisoners wear striped clothes, school kids wear striped blazers. But even if the scheme was designed this way, it does not work in practice, as students who want to wag school will take an extra set of plain clothes with them in their schoolbag. The main intention of school uniforms seems to be make students look stupid, silly and subservient, in order to humiliate students into believing they are captive, owned by the school and should behave accordingly in a servile way. The real purpose of the school uniform is to mould children into subservience, into mindless robots that will sing praise to the very system that physically and mentally incarcerates them. Flag waving, singing national anthems, marching, parades and wearing school uniforms, hiding the real reasons for all this, while instead fabricating obviously false arguments, it is all part and parcel of the harmful mentality that school imposes upon children. Uniforms are part of a mindset that does not protect children, but that makes children prone to be abused. There are many strong arguments against school uniforms. As an example, what about the arguments that school uniforms suppress individuality, development of personality, creativity, etc, etc? What about the rights of children to express themselves through their clothing? For young people it's often hard to articulate what they believe in. Just like a picture is worth a thousand words, fashion gives young people opportunities to express themselves where they may lack the literacy and verbosity to do so otherwise. Perhaps the strongest argument against school uniforms is that there do not seem to be arguments in favor of school uniforms that make sense. In the absense of arguments in favor, uniforms become a straitjacket that is forced upon those who resent it for the sake of killing their spirit. Given the lack of arguments in favor of uniforms, schools typically like to avoid discussing the matter principly. If any debate is allowed, schools like it to be a conversation between appointed "representatives" that doesn't go beyond the color and model of the proposed uniform. Schools will simply reject any views that it's disgusting to 'discipline' children into wearing uniforms. That brings us back to the first argument. Are uniforms part of some kind of training in discipline? Students bullying each other at school and acting silly, are these symptoms of oppression, or of a lack of discipline? And if there was a need for more discipline, how do school uniforms benefit in the picture? Where school uniforms deliberately make children look silly, they symbolize oppression. School uniforms seem designed to make children look silly, making the teacher look superior by comparison, so that the teacher will have less disciplinary problems in class. It's a well-known teacher's trick to silence obstinate pupils by humiliating them. So, is the teacher a dictator out to humiliate children, to crush their developing personality? And are school uniforms part of this scheme? Are children - at impressionable age - delivered into the hands of an oppressor who seeks to stop them from expressing and developing themselves, both verbally and through fashion? It may be hard to keep thirty-odd children quiet into a classroom under the supervision of a single teacher. But what possible benefits do school uniforms have in this? Do students perhaps turn into willing and well-behaved robots when dressed in uniform? Is there any research into this matter? If safety is such an important issue, then surely there must be concerns that school uniforms constitute a danger to the personal development of our children! How safe is the evolving mind of a child in the hands of a system that puts discipline above development? Again, if there was a need for more discipline, how do school uniforms benefit? Discipline doesn't result from fear, not from oppression. Discipline - if needed in the first place - comes with choice, not with an absense of choice! And how does wearing plain clothes disturb classroom discipline in the first place? Are some colors perhaps too loud? Should all kids perhaps dye their hair the same color as well? Let's stop trying to make sense out of these 'arguments', because the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. The conclusion must be that the advocates of school uniforms simply don't have any arguments! They seek to introduce uniforms without any discussion at all, in a - as they would call it - "disciplinary fashion". If you like to discuss things further, or if you'd like to give feedback on this article, go to:
 * The legality of School Uniforms**
 * The semi-scientific approach**
 * It's about our rights!**
 * Training?**
 * Equity?**
 * Ease and Cost?**
 * Pride?**
 * Safety?**
 * Where's the Research?**
 * Imprisonment and Subservience!**
 * Arguments against school uniforms**
 * Discipline?**

School Uniforms are a hot topic in America. Following President Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union address where he said "public schools should be able to require their students to wear uniforms", people on both sides of the argument have been putting their cases strongly.
 * [[image:fourapples.jpg width="70" height="280" caption="fourapples.jpg"]] ||  ||

School Uniforms in Britain
In the United Kingdom uniforms were the norm throughout most of the 20th Century and are still widespread, but the debate over their benefits and disadvantages is still raging some thirty years after quite a number of British comprehensive (public) schools stopped requiring students to wear uniforms.

School Uniforms in the USA
School principals in America often believe that bringing in uniforms will solve the school discipline problem at a stroke. Of course this is nonsense! Uniforms //can// be a small (read tiny) part of the mix of attitudes, techniques, rules and norms which lead to a happy successful peaceful school, but they are not a panacea. Furthermore, schools can become happy successful peaceful places without uniforms. This is good news because there are many people who are against School Uniforms and they have produced arguments of some serious disadvantages to introducing a school uniform policy.

Disadvantages of a school uniform policy.
1) **//High Cost of School Uniforms//**- Uniforms are not cheap and this is a good reason to be against school uniforms. Because children are constantly growing, there is a captive market for new school clothes and manufacturers take advantage. However, large volume manufacturers are producing very cheap clothing for younger pupils at the moment so this argument against school uniforms may not stand up to too much scrutiny. 2) **//Corruption and School Uniforms//** - The temptation for a head teacher to enter a cozy relationship with a local blazer manufacturer should not be ignored. Various British authorities have had to deal with corrupt heads working the system to steal money from schools. 3) **//Freedom of Expression is stifled by School Uniforms-//** A uniform breeds uniformity. We need free thinking children to become the thinkers of tomorrow, not drones who will continue making the mistakes of pervious generations. When we argue against school uniforms we argue against an education system that seeks to produce workers and for an education system that seeks to produce enlightened fully rounded human beings. 4) **//School Uniforms do not cut down on bullying -//** No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgment upon their peers. The clothes are not the root cause of bullying and therefore the bullying will continue, regardless of dress policy. No matter what clothing rules apply, students will always find ways to pass judgment upon each other. 5) //**School Uniforms are not safe to wear**//. Traditionally almost all school uniforms for boys include a tie and this is an inherently dangerous item of clothing. As a schoolboy the author of this article was personally endangered when his tie was trapped in a doorframe which resulted in his face being squeezed against a glass window in the door so hard that the glass smashed. For this reason alone the author is against school uniforms. 6)//**School Uniforms are a back-door form of selection.**// In February 2007 the british government issued new guidelines designed to stop headteachers insisting that specific suppliers be used by parents buying uniforms. This was not an attempt to stamp out corruption (see point 2 above) but a way of ensuring that equal access to primary education is maintained. Middle class parents can more easily afford uniforms and so were more likely to send their children to such schools than working class parents. Hence, the net result was a form of selection by uniform, where these schools gradually grow richer to the detriment of other local establishments. This goes against the principles of equal education for all. The guardian newspaper article [|Death of a schoolboy] has an interesting comment on the topic of neckties.
 * //School Uniforms and the media//**

These then are the common arguments against school uniforms. In response there are arguments for school uniforms that should not be discounted.

The economic argument for School Uniforms
While it is true that school uniforms cost money,it is equally true that in western society the peer group, fashion industry and other societal pressures pressures on kids to wear the 'right' trainers the 'cool' trousers or the particular style of top that is in fashion this month can lead to ostracism, bullying and emotional stress for those pupils whose parents are unable or unwilling to pay the price. A school uniform in such circumstances can prove to be a cheaper way of dressing children, and one where the problems alluded to above to not come into play. It should also be noted that wearing uniforms is not particularly burdensome for most students. Kids might not particularly like uniforms, but school uniforms rarely provide the catalyst for traumatic events in a pupil's life.

Teachers believe uniforms promote discipline
Teachers are broadly in favour of uniforms as an aid to in-class discipline. Ms J Brown, a head of faculty in an Essex secondary school believes 'The uniform serves as an ever-present visual reminder to the pupils of the rules we have in our school.'

Parents believe uniforms promote good standards
Results from a survey on school uniforms run by the DfES website were that a majority of UK parents think that school uniforms improve discipline, helps raise standards and reduced peer pressure and bullying.uniform descriptionsSCHOOLUNIFORMS[|communism]

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.__**