Rachel+Kolias

= **School Uniforms A Persuassive Essay Against High school is typically a time when kids begin to distinguish themselves from one another. Students begin to develop their own sense of personal style, desperately trying to both fit in and stand out simultaneously. Being self-conscious and often lacking the confidence needed to assert themselves, teens are forced to use clothing and outward appearance as the means to manifest this individuality. Thus, students should not be forced to wear uniforms to school. Standard uniforms are unproven deterrents to student violence; are a “Band-Aid” to cover up the real problems faced by children and teens; and they violate students' right of self-expression, depriving them of their search for identity. There is something comforting about school children and teenagers dressed in pleats and plaid. Maybe it is a reminder of past times, or conjures up thoughts of order and safety. Whatever the reason, school uniforms are getting a lot of “wear” these days, yet remain an unproven deterrent to school violence. No long-term, formal studies have been done with regards to the effectiveness of school uniforms, but many schools have kept their own informal statistics, such as the Long Beach School District. These statistics offered by Long Beach are often most cited as a proven deterrent to school violence, after adopting a mandatory uniform policy in 1994. According to Richard Van Der Laan, school crime has dropped over seventy-five percent, while attendance has reached an all-time high. One question we must ask ourselves is this, “Is it the uniforms, or the induction of them that is solving the problem?” Maybe it is the school and parents showing some “back-bone” which is affecting the students, not the clothing. If you are a skeptic, get in line. There is no concrete evidence proving uniforms alone cause such dramatic reductions in crime, but rather, these policies appear to act as nothing more that a “Band-Aid” that fails to address the real causes of youth violence. Although this violence, including sexual assault, can be linked to “free-dress”, it is not dependent upon it, and points to deeper, more significant problems within the youth community. Violence is not learned by clothing, but rather through unfit home situations, negative friendships, and even popular culture (including emulation of television, media, music, and movies). A simple change in dress will not abolish these problems, but merely hide them for a time. Every individual looks different; everyone knows that. This fact is especially apparent in high schools across North America. Students’ bodies are constantly changing and developing and students often try to wear clothing which is flattering and, or comfortable. It would be embarrassing to wear the same outfit as everyone else and look bad in it, and the shape or design of a standard uniform may not be right for every individual. Uniforms also prevent students from expressing creativity and using their own minds in making decisions on how to dress. Self-expression is a big part of maturing. All students are trying to find their identity and discover who they will become. If they cannot show who they are or find who they want to be, then a vital part of their school experience will be denied. So what is left to do? No one will ever be completely happy with any decision adopted, but we must continue to try and determine the best approach. Standard uniforms are unproven deterrents to student violence; are a “Band-Aid” to cover up the real problems faced by children and teens; and they violate students' right of self-expression, depriving them of their search for identity. From these conclusions, we must understand that though some gain is found through uniformity, a lot is lost. The most satisfying compromise between uniforms and free dress would be dress codes, which would alleviate some tensions (especially with regards to sexual assault), but would allow students to retain their clothing as a creative and expressive outlet. 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: [|**School Uniforms Debate**] = Reasons Against Mandatory School Uniform s = = = = = =Educators and parents over the past five years have been battling debates for and against school uniforms. Some areas have even added a "No opt-out" to their uniform policy, meaning that no matter what the parents beliefs are, the uniform must be worn no matter what. = = = =In this battle, school districts have been taken to court, kids getting sent home or suspended, and communities are in a bloodbath over clothing. People who salivate over mandatory school uniforms give no respect to the non-believers, and vice versa. = = = =Here are a few reasons to say NO to mandatory school uniforms: = = = = = = //Kids will not get teased in class if everyone wears uniforms. // = = = =Not true. Kids still get teased due to hair, glasses, weight, height, accent, where they live, being new to the area, etc. If everyone wears the same clothing, these differences will stand out even more. = = = = //Uniforms are cheaper than buying other clothes. // = = = =Most certainly not! With uniforms, you have to buy items only at certain stores. Not only will you have to buy the mandatory white shirt and navy blue pants, but you will have to buy your children other clothes for every day use. = = = =Also, it has become trendy to shop at thrift stores, such as Goodwill. A nice three button collared shirt can cost $3.00 at a thrift store, compared to the mandatory shirt selling for $14.97 at your required department store. Other stores can have closeouts and clearance sales, once again lessening the price of clothing. = = = =A good way to handle the cost of clothes shopping, is to tell your son/daughter they can spend a determined amount on clothing. If they want to spend half of it on one pair of must-have jeans, you will have to point out to them the consequences of them obtaining those pants. Make sure the teenager is involved with the money aspect. = = = = = = //Having a uniform will cut down on kids getting sent home for dress code violations. // = = = =Actually, the opposite is true. Kids are now more prone to being sent home. Students' wardrobes are heavily scrutinized by school faculty. Now, kids are taken out of class over things like a wrong color belt, no socks with their sandals, or even having pigtails or cornrows in their hair. Does a child really need in-school suspension because they forgot their belt? Does argyle socks merit a parent coming in with new socks? = = = = = = //Uniforms stop gangs & violence in schools. // = = = =Gangs form in any situation. If only red and black can be worn into the school, gang members will find ways around it. Anything from rolling a shirt sleeve a certain way to putting a pen in your ear can be construed as a gang sign. Even without gangs wearing certain colors, they will still gather in bunches. = = = = = = //Uniforms will stop unauthorized access into school grounds by people having no business there. // = = = =This is false. People can easily find out what clothing is allowed onto school grounds, and purchase these items. Because these people would have the acceptable clothing, no one will suspect these individuals of committing a crime. In the event of a crime, it is also harder to describe the person differently than any other school member. = = = = = = //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow;">What else can we do? There must be some alternative? // = = = =<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,'Arial Narrow'; text-align: left;">A great alternative to uniforms is to start Human Relations classes, or diversity training. Teach about being different, and how to handle others. Having a semester or full year of this could be a turning point in a young student's life. Major corporations have adopted this policy, having people of different ethnicities and lifestyle preferences to come in and share their experiences. = = = =<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow; text-align: left;">When you are trying to decide for or against uniforms, remember; Slapping a uniform on a piece of coal, still gives you a piece of coal. = =Facts against School Uniforms=
 * 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"]] ||  ||

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]

//<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-ser;">A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n //
//Updates on Legislation, Budget, and Activities// =Arguments about Uniforms= Many well intended adults have justified the use of school uniforms for many different reasons. While they make valid points I often disagree with them. Below are the 3 points I disagree with the most or you can skip down to what I beleive is a summary of valid pro and con arguments about uniforms.


 * //Theme 1:// Uniforms will stop other students by being judged on how they look / Uniforms will make it harder for cliques to form.**

//Response:// No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgement upon their peers. If it's not based upon the style of clothes worn there are many other superficial ways to judge people and form cliques. Including: This list is by no means exhaustive, but you get the idea. Yes cliques can be a problem in schools. Yes judging people upon thier apearance can be bad in schools. However making everyone wear the same type of clothes is not going to make the problem magically disapear. Instead of hiding from the problem why not tackle it head on. Teach your kids to accept the odd kid out. Teach your kids not to judge based upon superficial criteria. Kids can be taught to be open to all sorts of people. However, by making everyone wear the same types of clothes, I believe you are just sending the message that since you can't accept each other when you are different, we're going to make you all the same. How will your child ever cope in the adult world when they actually do encounter someone who is different then themselves.
 * hair style
 * hair colour
 * height
 * weight
 * accessories (ie necklaces, watches and etc.)
 * odor (type of purfume/colone and etc.)
 * the way one walks
 * smoking habits


 * //Theme 2:// Uniforms will save families money / Students won't pressure their parents to buy clothes some families can't afford.**

//Response:// Firstly uniforms have not saved my family money. If one avoids buying name brand clothing, clothes can be relatively affordable. When my mom bought my little brother his uniforms. She bought him 2 separate outfits. 2 golf shirts, 2 pairs of pants, 1 sweatshirt and 1 vest came to around $250.00. She could have easily bought a full weeks worth of street clothing (7 shirts, 3 pairs of pants) for slightly less money. Mind you, we aren't in the habit of buying new wardrobes every time a new school year starts, this is just a comparison. It should also be noted that when you buy uniforms, regular street clothing also needs to be bought for weekends and during the summer.

Some might say, "Wait a second. My kid's T-shirt costs $40 or more." It is not that difficult to find long lasting clothing in the 10-20 dollar range. The only catch it may not have your child's favourite company logo that is endorsed by a multi-millionaire. So what if your kid says that all the cool kids have Nike shirts? This is an ideal time to teach your child there is more to life than a cool logo. This would also be a good time to teach your child not to choose their friends based upon what logos their peers wear. If all the parents didn't buy their kids all logo clothing or taught their kids not to put emphasis on the logos, this wouldn't even been an issue.


 * //Theme 3:// Uniforms will make it easier to identify those who are not from the school and therefore increase security/safety.**

//Response:// This is what I consider to be the only valid point. I guess sometimes students from other schools do go to other schools to cause trouble. I guess if they're in a t-shirt and baggy clothes they will stick out like a sore thumb. So from that respect the school will be protected from unruly outsiders. However, I somehow doubt uniforms will stop circle beatings in the pit and students sneaking in contraband weapons. I am also sure it would not be that hard to borrow uniforms from friends who may go to the uniform school. If there is a will, there is a way, especially with students who have lots of time conjure up ways to create mischief.

 Take me back to the School Uniforms Home Page
 * Pro-Uniforms || Anti uniforms ||
 * * Save money on clothing
 * Uniforms will cut down on teasing and cliques
 * schools will be safe from outsiders
 * Parents will no longer have to buy designer labels
 * Uniforms will separate the public schools from the catholic/private schools. || * Uniforms ultimately cost more
 * Uniforms do not teach children how to deal with people who are different then themselves.
 * Cliques will still form.
 * It is impossible to prevent all outside intrusion
 * Children will still ask for designer labels for outside of school clothing. (Uniforms will not make this issue go away.)
 * If you need uniforms to distinguish between public and catholic/private schools it's time to re-evaluate where your child is going.
 * Uniforms teach children that in order to get along everyone must conform to the same standards. ||

||
 * =Manual on School Uniforms=

School Uniforms: Where They Are and Why They Work
A safe and disciplined learning environment is the first requirement of a good school. Young people who are safe and secure, who learn basic American values and the essentials of good citizenship, are better students. In response to growing levels of violence in our schools, many parents, teachers, and school officials have come to see school uniforms as one positive and creative way to reduce discipline problems and increase school safety. They observed that the adoption of school uniform policies can promote school safety, improve discipline, and enhance the learning environment. The potential benefits of school uniforms include: As a result, many local communities are deciding to adopt school uniform policies as part of an overall program to improve school safety and discipline. California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia have enacted school uniform regulations. Many large public school systems -- including Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, Phoenix, Seattle and St. Louis -- have schools with either voluntary or mandatory uniform policies, mostly in elementary and middle schools. In addition, many private and parochial schools have required uniforms for a number of years. Still other schools have implemented dress codes to encourage a safe environment by, for example, prohibiting clothes with certain language or gang colors.
 * decreasing violence and theft -- even life-threatening situations -- among students over designer clothing or expensive sneakers;
 * helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school;
 * instilling students with discipline;
 * helping parents and students resist peer pressure;
 * helping students concentrate on their school work; and
 * helping school officials recognize intruders who come to the school.

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]] || [[image:/images/ERIClogo2001_animated.gif align="bottom" caption="ERIC Logo"]] ||  || Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management ||
 * College of Education · University of Oregon ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif]] |||| [[image:/images/small_navbar.gif]] ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif]] |||| [[image:/images/small_navbar.gif]] ||
 * [[image:/images/spacer.gif]] |||| [[image:/images/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]] ||  ||   ||
 * ||  || [[image:/images/menu_publications.gif caption="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
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Gil Sans,Helvetica,Arial;">**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
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Gil Sans,Helvetica,Arial;">**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

Visits since Nov. 30th, 1999.

**Print** <span style="color: #0054a6; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: sans-serif,Times New Roman,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;">**Federal judge: Uniforms may stay, but so may student's armband**

<span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Associated Press <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;">12.28.99 <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> (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.

Good Luck!

=
==================================== Philadelphia Daily News (PA)

April 27, 2000


 * SCHOOLS MIGHT TAKE A UNIFORM APPROACH**

Kevin Haney, Daily News Staff Writer

Clothes make the man, it's been said.

Now Philadelphia educators and politicians wonder if clothes can make the kids behave. Prodded by Mayor Street's belief that school uniforms make schools safer, the Board of Education is hurriedly weaving what will become the School District's first citywide uniform policy.

The board is set to vote May 8, allowing just enough time to get word to parents before schools close June 14. In a special hearing this afternoon, City Council is sizing up the uniform issue itself, with at least 10 witnesses expected to testify.

The district already has a dress code, which basically limits how much bare skin a student can show.

But Street, responding to community interest at nearly two dozen school meetings this year, has ordered the board to consider mandating uniforms to improve discipline.

Street, relaying his views through a spokeswoman yesterday, described himself as "an enthusiastic supporter of school uniforms and would love to see all school children wear school uniforms."

"One of the reasons is that it seems to have a positive impact on the climate in the schools and how children behave," Street spokeswoman Barbara Grant said.

While Street shares that perception with a wide range of adults, including many educators, there's no real proof they make any difference.

Marc Posner, a researcher in the field of school safety, said there's no clear evidence that uniforms create safer schools.

The problem is that schools which mandate uniforms typically make other changes, said Posner, who is with the Education Development Center, an international think tank in Massachusetts. "It's impossible to tease out the effects of the school uniforms from these other reforms," he said.

At Cramp elementary in West Kensington, principal Adrienne Carpenter doesn't have any data to prove uniforms make a difference.

But she has enough first-hand observation and anecdotal evidence to be convinced.

Carpenter heads a school with some 900 children in kindergarten through fifth grade.

The school added uniforms this year, at the suggestion of parents who asked her last spring.

Nearly 90 percent of the parents voted for the uniforms, and more than 90 percent of the students were wearing them during a survey earlier this month.

Most of the school's families are Latino - first-generation families from Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Mexico.

They're accustomed to children wearing uniforms in their native lands, and they wanted to continue that here, said Carmen Leon, president of Cramp's home and school association.

Carpenter has used the uniforms to build a bigger identity for the school.

The basic colors are white for shirts and blue for pants, skirts or jumpers. Shoes are black.

The punctuation is a bright red tie, known as "the power tie."

Carpenter recited the mantra she repeats to her students frequently: "The power to read, the power to succeed, the power to achieve. You've got the power."

The power-tie uniforms and the mantra have made believers of the second-graders in Donna Zaccaria's class.

"They make you smart," boasted Elvira Morales.

"It helps me to read and think," said Lourdelis Esparra.

Having everyone in the same apparel ends the temptation for the youngsters to eyeball each other's clothing, Zaccaria said.

"They don't worry about who's wearing the expensive clothes," said Zaccaria, who wears her own uniform each day.

About 10 of the school's 25 teachers wear the school colors daily, Carpenter said.

Even the school janitor wears the T-shirt that's part of the gym uniform, she said.

The uniforms have impressed those outside the school, as well. Carpenter and Zaccaria told of a firefighter, a speaker at an assembly, and a bus driver who remarked on how smartly dressed the kids appeared.

Appearance is what uniforms have going for them.

Posner said a 1994 scientific study of school uniforms found that educators and students alike thought more highly of students wearing uniforms.

A study by one sociologist of uniforms in general found that outsiders also perceived people wearing uniforms to be more professional and disciplined.

The School District held up as the poster institution for uniform success is in Long Beach, Calif. That district mandated uniforms for some 67,000 students through the eighth grade in 1995.

Five years later, the district reported overall crime and suspensions both down by 90 percent, with vandalism down 69 percent.

But Posner said the district made other changes simultaneously, hiring a dynamic superintendent and appointing a corps of activist principals who reformed school curriculum.

The district also mounted a sustained campaign to get parents more involved in their kids' learning, Posner said.

Statistics from other school districts is mixed.

Support for uniforms here isn't uniform.

Jason Kleinman, the school board's advisory student member, believes uniforms would run into a barrier.

"One thing I know we couldn't do is suddenly ask high school students to suddenly start to wear uniforms. We would meet maximum resistance on that," he said.

A spokesman for Philadelphia Student Union said its 90 students at five district high schools see uniforms as oppression, on top of the district's adding metal detectors and about 100 more police officers this year.

Gail Greenman, president of the Central High School home and school association, said her group opposed mandatory uniforms, especially in high schools.

"At that age, they need to express themselves in certain ways, and dress is a big portion of that," she said.

Another Central parent told the school board Monday at its regular meeting that imposing uniforms would betray baby boomer parents who fought against conformity in their youth.

None of Philadelphia's 34 high schools have uniforms.

Among over 200 other schools, 24 have uniform programs this year.

Four others had uniforms in recent years, but their programs fell into tatters.

Philadelphia is the only big-metropolis district this year where a majority of students aren't wearing uniforms.

New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Miami-Dade County, Boston and Washington, D.C., now have uniform policies.

At Cramp, folks are undaunted.

Leon's goal is to see everybody in uniform come September.

And Carpenter has one bit of advice for the school board as it sews a uniform pattern.

"It should be affordable," she suggested.

Send e-mail to haneyk@phillynews.com

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The Philadelphia schools instituted the uniform policy in Fall 2000.] [|stats]The Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore Department of SociologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre Dame, IN 46556

Manuscript accepted for publication in The Journal of Educational ResearchFebruary 13, 1998 (manuscript #03-97-83)

Direct all correspondence to David L. Brunsma at brunsmad@email.uah.edu ABSTRACT Recent discourse on public school reform has focused on mandatory uniform policies. Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specific behavioral and academic outcomes. This research empirically tests the claims made by uniform advocates using 10th grade data from The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Our findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems or attendance. A negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement was found. These findings are contrary to current discourse on student uniforms. We conclude that uniform policies may indirectly affect school environment and student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement and reform.

INTRODUCTION Public discourse surrounding educational reform has recently focused on the importance of uniform policies in public schools. School uniform policies have historically been restricted to the private sector and have only recently begun to be discussed as a viable policy option in public school districts. A decade of research showing the effectiveness of private schools has led some school reformers to consider various policies which are linked to private and Catholic school success. Within the Catholic school literature, school uniforms have never been asserted as a primary factor in producing the Catholic school effect. Nevertheless, public school administrators are beginning to consider uniform policies as a way to improve the overall school environment and student achievement. Due to the controversial nature of mandatory school uniform policies, educators are speaking out, both advocating and condemning the proposed reform efforts. Uniform advocates propose several different arguments. First, uniforms are argued to positively effect student safety by: lowering student victimization (Scherer 1991), decreasing gang activity and fights (Kennedy, 1995; Loesch, 1995), and differentiating strangers from students in the school building (Department of Justice, 1996; Gursky, 1996). Second, uniforms are asserted to increase student learning and attitudes towards school through: enhancing the learning environment (Stover, 1990), raising school pride (Jarchow, 1992), increasing student achievement (Thomas, 1994), raising levels of preparedness (Thomas, 1994), and promoting conformity to organizational goals (LaPointe, Holloman, and Alleyne, 1992; Workman & Johnson, 1994). Additionally, uniforms are attributed to decreasing behavior problems by: increasing attendance rates, lowering suspension rates, and decreasing substance use among the student body (Gursky, 1996). Finally, various psychological outcomes are attributed to wearing uniforms including: increased self-esteem (Thomas, 1994), increased spirit (Jarchow, 1992), and increased feelings of "oneness" among students (LaPointe, Holoman, & Alleyne, 1992). Opponents of adopting uniform policies stress the legal, financial, and questionable effectiveness of such policies. The legal concerns focus on the supposition that requiring a uniform violates children's individual rights (Thomas, 1994; Virginia State Department of Education, 1992). This argument is extended by opponents who argue that mandatory uniform policies are being considered largely for urban school districts, and hence are being forced upon a predominately minority and poor student population (Thomas, 1994). Financially, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have voiced concerns about the cost of uniforms, specifically that purchasing one is a mandatory cost which some disadvantaged parents are unable to afford (Gursky, 1996). Finally, the strongest opponents to uniform policies charge that there currently exists no empirical evidence to support the numerous and varied claims of uniform proponents (LaPointe, Holoman, & Alleyne, 1992). The case study most often cited in the political rhetoric surrounding the uniform debate is that of the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). LBUSD was one of the first large urban school districts within the United States to adopt a mandatory school uniform policy. This case provides some context for the discussion in that it serves as a prime example of a system which has recently instituted a school uniform requirement, has received national attention for it's efforts, and attributes students' behavioral changes to the mandatory uniform policy. In a press release, the Board President of LBUSD had the following to say about the uniform policy: These schools are becoming educational workplaces. Students arrive dressed for success, ready to learn. They're getting along with one another better and experiencing significant gains. Principals and teachers tell us that students' success is taking many forms -- fewer absences, fewer tardies, fewer truancies, fewer referrals to the office for behavior problems, fewer suspensions and expulsions, better grades and, in some cases, significantly higher achievement. (Polacheck, 1996) In this district, school uniforms are currently required from kindergarten through eighth grade in 70 schools, including approximately 60,000 students. School District press releases indicate that there is widespread parental support for the mandatory uniform policy. Although California law provides a clause allowing parents to request a uniform exemption for their students, less than 1% of parents have requested such exemptions. In efforts to aid students from financially disadvantaged families, philanthropic groups in the area have provided $160,000 in uniforms to Long Beach students. The table (Table A) in Appendix A presents the statistical evidence provided by the School District in support of their claims that school uniforms decrease crime. It is typically assumed, as exemplified by the Long Beach case, that uniforms are the sole factor causing direct change in numerous behavioral and academic outcomes. It is these pronouncements by uniform proponents that have raised strident objections and created a political climate in which public school uniform policies have become highly contested. This ongoing public discourse is not only entrenched in controversy, but largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hence, it seems critical at this point in time, for empirical analyses to be conducted to inform the school uniform debate. This paper examines the relationship between uniforms and several outcomes which represent the core elements of uniform proponents' claims. Specifically, we will examine the effect of wearing a uniform on attendance, disciplinary behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. It is the intention of the authors 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.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Nathan Joseph (1986) has formulated an analysis of clothing as communication which provides a framework within which uniform proponents claims can be better understood. He asserts that clothing can be considered a sign, which he defines as "anything that stands for something else." Clothing, as a sign, coveys information about values, beliefs and emotions. If the clothing that adolescents wear can be considered a sign, then that which they freely choose as individuals can be seen as conveying an expression of their personal identity. School uniforms, by contrast, are clothing which is selected by school officials and mandated to students. It is simple in style and color and it is intended to convey the institutional values of the school. Joseph suggests that for clothing to be considered a 'uniform' it must fulfill the following criteria: 1) it must serve as a group emblem, 2) it must certify the institution's legitimacy by revealing an actor's status position, and 3) it must suppress individuality (1986). Within the context of an educational institution, school uniforms clearly function as a symbol of membership to the school community. The presence of a uniform in schools automatically implies a two-tiered hierarchical structure, those that wear uniforms (subordinates) and those that do not wear uniforms (superiors). School uniforms serve as a clear sign of this status distinction between students and faculty and therefore, certify the legitimacy of that distinction by all members. School uniforms act as suppressers of students' individuality by mandating standardization of appearance and removing student expression through clothing. Given these characteristics of uniforms, it becomes clear that mandatory uniforms serve the function of maintaining social control within the school environment. The uniforms, as a sign of group membership, act as immediate cues which signal who does and does not belong to the school community. Amongst the community members themselves, uniforms seem to act as a dramaturgical device by establishing interactional boundaries between members of separate statuses (teachers and students) and promoting the internalization of organizational goals. If uniforms are considered a sign which facilitates social control of student behavior, then it can be expected that students in uniforms will display behaviors which are consistent with the institutional goals of the school. Inconsistent attendance, disciplinary behavior problems, and substance abuse represent student behaviors which are non-representative of the values of public high schools. By contrast, high levels of academic achievement are consistent with the goals of educational institutions. The following hypotheses are provided to test the validity of the uniform advocates' statements.

H1: Student uniforms will decrease substance use H2: Student uniforms will decrease behavioral problems H3: Student uniforms will increase attendance H4: Student uniforms will increase academic achievement

Within the context of the public debate on mandatory uniform policies, the mechanisms through which uniforms effect the above stated outcomes are subtly implied. They include pro-school attitudes, peer pro-school orientation, and academic preparedness. In testing each of the above stated relationships, it is expected that the direct effect of uniforms on the four outcomes will disappear when these moderating variables are added to the equation. If this is in fact the case, arguments stating uniform policies' direct effect on a given outcome should be abandoned and more attention given to the actual mechanisms which produce the sought after effects. Finally, it should be emphasized that the purpose of this paper is to test the claims made in the context of the school uniform debate using a nationally representative sample of students.

DATA AND METHODS The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) is used to test the relationships outlined above. NELS:88 is a national stratified random sample of schools and students which began with eighth grade students (in 1988). It has since gone through three follow-ups with the most current one (1994) collecting data on the original eighth graders in their second year of postsecondary education. The data used for this analysis comes from the first follow-up of NELS:88 when students were in tenth grade. NELS:88 oversampled certain minority groups, private sector schools, and high performance schools. Thus, standardized weights and design effects will be applied in order to make statements about the population of tenth grade students in the United States and the effects of uniforms on them. The student component as well as the school-administrator component were used to provide data on uniform policies and the student background, peer group, achievement and behavioral characteristics needed for this analysis.

VARIABLES NELS:88 provided a number of variables which were used to analyze the relationship between student uniforms and various student outcomes. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the variables described below (see Appendix B for the specific NELS:88 variables used to construct the measures used). Independent Variables Several controls for student characteristics were constructed. Student minority status was measured by a dummy variable for Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. White students remained the omitted category and all comparisons are made to them. Student gender was assessed by a dummy variable with male students as the omitted category. These categorizations resulted in a weighted distribution of 49.6% female, 50.4% male, 3.8% Asian, 12.5% black, 10.1% Hispanic, and 73.6% white students. As an indicator of student socioeconomic status a pre-computated NELS:88 socioeconomic status composite was used to control for parental education, income, and occupational prestige. The distributional properties of this scale are a mean of zero with a standard deviation of 1; thus, we obtain a scale which represents individual student family deviations from the mean of this composite. Variables to control for school characteristics were also used. Important controls for student track placement were measured using a dummy variable for each academic, vocational-technical, and other programs with general tracked students as the omitted category. Another crucial school variable to control for in this analysis is that of school sector. Because a small percentage of public schools actually have uniform policies, the results found here could not be relegated to simply a private/public explanation. Thus, control variables were constructed for Catholic schools, private religious schools, private non-religious schools, and private schools which were not ascertained as to their affiliation. The omitted category was, of course, public high schools. This categorization revealed a weighted description of the sample as follows: 51.9% in general track, 32.3% in academic track, 9.8% in vocational/technical track, 6% in other programs, 92% Public schools, 5.6% Catholic schools, 2% Private religious schools, 1.2% Private non-religious, and a small (less than 1%) percentage of private non-ascertained schools. Type of school district (urban, rural, suburban) were also controlled for. Some 32% of schools were rural, 27.6% were urban and 40.4% were suburban. A variable from the School Component of NELS:88 was used to ascertain whether or not a student was, due to school policy, required to wear a uniform. Some 5% of the students in the entire sample were required by policy to wear a school uniform. This can be further broken down into: 65.4% of Catholic, 16.6% of Private Non-Religious, 5.4% of Private Other-Religious, .8% of Public, and 0% of Private Non-Ascertained students are required to wear a uniform at their high school. Student uniform use is the focal independent variable of this research project. Three scales were created to represent school preparedness, student pro-school attitudes, and the peer group's pro-school attitudes. These scales represent variables which are hypothesized to be the critical moderating variables explaining why uniforms might affect the dependent variables as opposed to uniform use having direct effects. The scales were used to measure these intervening processes (see Appendix B for scale information). An academic preparedness scale assessed the degree to which a student came to class with their books, their homework done, and school supplies (i.e., pencils, paper, etc.). A scale to assess pro-school attitudes measured the degree to which a student felt it was ok to cut class, destroy school property, fight on school grounds, etc. It taps an important dimension of attitudes towards behavior at school which would or would not cater to a positive academic atmosphere. Finally, a scale was constructed in order to assess the importance the student's peer group placed on pro-school attitudes. It included attitudes towards finishing school, getting good grades, and studying. As the analysis proceeded, interaction terms between the uniform variable and those of the moderating scales were computed to assess the special effects of these combinations on the outcomes of interest. Dependent Variables The debate over school uniforms suggests using several outcomes to test the effectiveness of adopting a uniform policy on how students fare on these consequences. The dependent variables chosen were student absenteeism, student behavior problems, student substance use, and student achievement. A variable was used to assess how often a student was absent from school. A behavioral scale was created from a number of variables to assess the degree to which a student has been involved in behaviorally problematic conduct in relation to school. Some of the variables in the behavior scale included whether the student: got into physical fights, got put on in-school suspension, skipped or cut classes, was suspended from school, and in general got in trouble. To assess the degree of substance usage among students, a scale was computed to reflect student use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. To assess student achievement a composite standardized achievement test (composite of reading and math tests) was used. Regressions were also conducted on pro-school attitudes, peer pro-school attitudes and academic preparedness to observe the effect of uniforms on these characteristics. By testing the logic of claims made by advocates of school reform, several interesting findings result that have implications for the ongoing debate. The authors remain specifically interested in the relationships and the predictive power of student uniform policies on the outcomes of interest. In all analyses a weighting procedure utilizing the population weight (F1QWT) and the appropriate design effect was computated according to the population being tested. The standardized population weight multiplied by the inverse of the appropriate design effect is used in the analyses in order to take into account the fact that NELS:88 is a clustered data set. By creating these new weights (a weight for the entire sample, for the catholic sample and for the private sample - see analysis in Table 3), we correct for clustered sample problems which stem from each case not necessarily being independent due to the sampling frame used by the collectors of NELS:88. Weighted regressions using design effects will be performed where the relationships highlighted above will be tested. These corrections provide results which are representative of U.S. tenth graders.

TABLE 1: Weighted Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Used in the Analysis (N=4578)a

aweighted by newghta which was computed using the NELS:88 population weight (f1qwt) and the design effect for the entire sample, the computation is as follows: newghta=f1qwt/(mean of f1qwt) x 1/(design effect).
 * Variable || Mean || Standard Deviation ||
 * Female || .496 || .500 ||
 * Asian || .038 || .191 ||
 * Black || .125 || .330 ||
 * Hispanic || .101 || .301 ||
 * F1ses || 3.267 || 17.861 ||
 * Catholic || .056 || .229 ||
 * Privnon || .012 || .110 ||
 * Privnot || .001 || .022 ||
 * Privrel || .020 || .141 ||
 * Academic || .323 || .468 ||
 * Votech || .098 || .297 ||
 * Othprog || .060 || .237 ||
 * Rural || .320 || .467 ||
 * Urban || .276 || .447 ||
 * Uniform1 || .050 || .219 ||
 * Absent || 3.012 || 1.379 ||
 * Behavior || 1.781 || 2.359 ||
 * Drugs || 2.702 || 3.092 ||
 * Peerpro || 7.475 || 1.386 ||
 * Prepare || 9.707 || 1.756 ||
 * Proschol || 43.835 || 4.124 ||

RESULTS AND FINDINGS Descriptive Analysis Table 1 gives the weighted means and standard deviations of the variables which are used in the analyses presented here. Most of the descriptive highlights have been summarized in the above section on variable construction. Appendix B gives a summary of the original NELS:88 variables which were used to create the various independent and dependent scales. Appendix C shows the correlation matrix of the variables used in the analysis. Student uniforms are slightly (.05) correlated with standardized achievement scores indicating a possible relationship there. The debate focuses on correlations like these; however, this correlation, though not indicating a predictive nature of uniforms, is much smaller than the debate would have us believe. Student uniform use is not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variables of absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students who wear uniforms do not appear to have any significantly higher or lower academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, or peer group structures with pro-school attitudes. Also, note the significant negative correlations between these attitudinal variables and the various outcomes of interest. These are correlations, hence the predictive analysis will provide more substantive results. In order to give a slightly more rigorous test of the relationships between uniforms and the four dependent variables, t-tests comparing the means of the dependent measures by uniform use and sector were conducted. Table 2 presents the results for the weighted sector comparisons. In the first panel, means of our four dependent measures are compared between uniform and non-uniformed 10th graders for the total sample which included all school sectors. At this level, uniformed students have significantly higher achievement (p < .01). This mirrors the hypothesized character of the difference as stated in the public discourse. However, when one breaks down this type of analysis into sector, the relationships do not hold.

TABLE 2:Weighted Sector Comparisons on Means of Absenteeism, Behavior, Substance Use and Standardized Achievement Scores Absent Behavior Drugs F12xcomp || 2.90 1.58 2.68 52.89 || 3.01 1.74 2.71 50.58 || Absent Behavior Drugs F12xcomp || 2.89* 1.49 2.73 53.51 || 2.55 1.41 2.80 56.53 || Absent Behavior Drugs F12xcomp || 2.93 1.33 2.36 56.60 || 2.73 1.28 2.07 56.01 || b weighted by newghtc. See a above except this is for the catholic sample only. c weighted by newghtp. See a above except this is for the private school sample only. d t-tests of significance were conducted comparing uniform to non-uniform within each sector.
 * || Uniformd || Non-Uniform ||
 * Total Samplea (N=4578)
 * Catholic Sampleb (N=327)
 * Private Samplec (N=80)
 * p < .001, **p < .01, * p < .05**
 * a weighted by newghta which was computed using the NELS:88 population weight (f1qwt) and the design effect for the entire sample, the computation is as follows: newghta=f1qwt/(mean of f1qwt) x 1/(design effect).

Catholic schools and uniforms go together in most people's minds, and in fact, they are the sector which utilizes uniform policies the most (65.4%). Thus, one would expect the relationship to hold here as well - uniformed Catholic students should have the desired outcomes to a greater extent then non-uniformed Catholic students (if uniforms are indeed a force behind what occurs there). The same logic should apply to other private schools, albeit to a less exact extent. In fact, panel 2 of Table 2 shows the results of a weighted comparison between uniformed students and non-uniformed students in the Catholic sector only (N=327). Only the results for absenteeism and achievement are significant and it is important to note that these relationships reverse. Uniformed Catholic students are absent more often (p < .05) and, on average, score some 3 points less (p < .01) on an achievement test than non-uniformed Catholic students. This fails to support the thesis that uniforms are related to these outcomes. None of the comparisons are significant in panel 3 where other private schools are compared most likely due to small sample size.

Student Uniforms as Predictors So far this paper has presented somewhat weaker, though interesting, tests of the relationship between student uniforms and the various outcomes. The debate tends to imply stronger claims than simple correlations and mean comparisons: there is an implicit charge that uniforms "cause" or "impact" the outcomes with which educators and policymakers are concerned. A number of weighted regression analyses were run in order to test the predictive impact of student uniforms on absenteeism, behavior problems, substance use, and achievement. Table 3 presents the results for the regressions using the three indicators of non-commitment to school. Table 4 presents the results for the regression of achievement on uniforms and other variables. Do uniforms have an impact on absenteeism? Model I presents the unstandardized coefficients for the impact of the control variables on absenteeism. These explain 3% of the variance in the dependent variable. In Model II, the variable for student uniforms is added. The uniform coefficient is not significantly different from zero and no statements can be made. No extra variance is explained in Model II. An interesting finding is that once the variation for uniform use is taken into account the Catholic effect actually gets stronger in decreasing absenteeism. This implies that the Catholic effect, often cited in the literature as effecting these sorts of outcomes, remains supported. However, the effect is not associated with whether the students wear uniforms or not; it is more likely due to the social relations fostered in Catholic schools. Finally, the variables added in Model III explain an extra 8% of the variance in absenteeism and are all significant predictors of decreased absenteeism indicating that academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes and peer norms significantly affect attendance at school in the desired direction. Hypothesis One, which stated that student uniforms would decrease absenteeism, is not supported by these results.

TABLE 3:Weighted Regression of Absenteeism, Behavior Problems and Substance Use on Uniform Use, Pro-School Attitudes, Academic Preparedness, Peer Pro-School Attitudes and Other Variables (b-coefficients shown)**


 * || Absenteeism || Behavior Problems || Substance Use ||


 * || I || II || III || I || II || III || I || II || III ||
 * Female || .24* || .24* || .41* || -.91* || -.91* || -.35* || -.40* || -.40* || .27 ||
 * Asian || -.53* || -.53* || -.44* || -.37 || -.36 || -.04 || -1.21* || -1.21* || -.74 ||
 * Black || -.37* || -.37* || -.26* || .15 || .15 || 55* || -1.40* || -1.40* || -.82* ||
 * Hispanic || .08 || .08 || .13 || .11 || .11 || .29* || -.53* || -.53* || -.25 ||
 * F1ses || .00*a || .00* || .00* || .00* || .00* || .00* || .01 || .01 || .01 ||
 * Catholic || -.22* || -.32* || -.30* || -.18 || -.41 || -.33 || .25 || .22 || .34 ||
 * Privnon || -.25 || -.27 || -.22 || -.58 || -.63* || -.46 || .02 || .01 || .21 ||
 * Privnot || .80 || .80 || 1.08 || -1.37 || -1.36 || -.50 || -1.68 || -1.68 || -.54 ||
 * Privrel || -.20 || -.22 || -.18 || -.18 || -.22 || -.09 || -.87* || -.87* || -.81* ||
 * Academic || -.27* || -.27* || -.14 || -.77* || -.77* || -.32* || -.81* || -.81* || -.25* ||
 * Votech || -.01 || -.01 || -.00 || .10 || .10 || .14 || -.03 || -.03 || .05 ||
 * Othprog || .02 || .02 || .04 || .14 || .14 || .21 || -.16 || -.16 || -.06 ||
 * Rural || -.11* || -.11* || -.09 || -.17* || -.17 || -.08 || .01 || .01 || .12 ||
 * Urban || -.01 || -.01 || .01 || .05 || .04 || .13 || -.10 || -.10 || -.01 ||
 * Uniform1 ||  || .17 || .13 ||   || .36 || .23 ||   || .05 || -.08 ||
 * Prepare ||  ||   || -.07* ||   ||   || -.16* ||   ||   || -.10 ||
 * Proschol ||  ||   || -.07* ||   ||   || -.30* ||   ||   || -.10* ||
 * Peerpro ||  ||   || -.07* ||   ||   || -.05* ||   ||   || -.20* ||
 * (Constant) || 3.07* || 3.07* || 6.98* || 2.45* || 2.45* || 16.8* || 3.43* || 3.43* || 20.5* ||
 * R2 || .03 || .03 || .11 || .08 || .08 || .41 || .05 || .05 || .32 ||
 * Std. Er. Est || 1.34 || 1.34 || 1.29 || 2.20 || 2.20 || 1.76 || 3.00 || 3.00 || 2.54 ||
 * F-Value || 8.4* || 7.9* || 22.6* || 20.0* || 18.9* || 133* || 10.7* || 10.0* || 75.3* ||
 * N || 3427 || 3427 || 3427 || 3410 || 3410 || 3410 || 2927 || 2927 || 2927 ||
 * N || 3427 || 3427 || 3427 || 3410 || 3410 || 3410 || 2927 || 2927 || 2927 ||

a Coefficient was .0045 in all cases where indicated by a .00.
 * **p < .001,** p < .01, * p < .05

Do student uniforms significantly decrease behavioral problems? Again, Model I shows the results for the control variables alone on the dependent variable. These variables alone explain 8% of the variance in behavior problems. The student uniform variable is added in Model II and the insignificant effect is similar to that for absenteeism. No extra variance is explained. When the mediating variables are added in Model III, an extra 33% of the variance in behavioral problems is explained. Academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes and peer norms effectively lessen behavioral problems on average. Hypothesis Two, which stated that student uniforms will decrease behavior problems, is not supported by this analysis. A final question of uniform's relationship to school commitment can be posed: Do student uniforms significantly decrease substance use among high school students? As in the previous results, Model I presents the control variables' effects. These explain 5% of the variance in substance use. Model II adds the student uniforms variable. The uniform variable is non-significant and it adds no extra explanatory power. Finally, academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, and peer norms which are pro-school again effectively decrease substance use among high school students. These variables explain an extra 27% of the variance. Thus, Hypothesis Three, which stated that student uniforms will decrease substance use, is unsupported, implying that implementing uniform policies at the high school level will not effectively create the desired outcomes.

TABLE 4:Weighted Regression of Standardized Achievement Test Score on Uniform Use,Pro-School Attitudes, Academic Preparedness, Peer Pro-School Attitudes and Other Variables


 * || Standardized Achievement ||


 * || I || II || III ||
 * Female || .33 || .40 || .00 ||
 * Asian || .16 || .10 || -.09 ||
 * Black || -6.29* || -6.27* || -6.53* ||
 * Hispanic || -4.41* || -4.43* || -4.53* ||
 * F1ses || -.01 || -.01 || -.01 ||
 * Catholic || 1.40* || 3.04* || 2.99* ||
 * Privnon || 3.30 || 3.67 || 3.55 ||
 * Privnot || -.08 || -.14 || -.68 ||
 * Privrel || 3.21 || 3.52* || 3.43* ||
 * Academic || 6.60* || 6.60* || 6.29* ||
 * Votech || -3.95* || -3.94* || -3.97* ||
 * Othprog || -2.78* || -2.79* || -2.82* ||
 * Rural || -1.37* || -1.40* || -1.47* ||
 * Urban || .15 || .17 || .09 ||
 * Uniform1 ||  || -2.59 || -2.50 ||
 * Prepare ||  ||   || .18* ||
 * Proschol ||  ||   || .22* ||
 * Peerpro ||  ||   || -.10 ||
 * (Constant) || 50.7* || 50.6* || 39.9* ||
 * R2 || .23 || .23 || .24 ||
 * Std. Err. Est || 8.57 || 8.56 || 8.50 ||
 * F-Value || 69.1* || 65.2* || 57.7* ||
 * N || 3286 || 3286 || 3286 ||
 * p < .001, **p < .01, * p < .05**


 * Table 4 presents a similar set of models as in the previous three analyses for uniform's effect on achievement scores. Do student uniforms effect achievement? Model I presents the results for the control variables explaining some 23% of the variance in the standardized achievement test. Model II adds the dummy variable for student uniforms. Here, contrary to the expected, student uniform use actually decreases, on average, the standardized test score of these tenth graders who wear them due to mandatory school policy. It is, in fact, almost a 3-point decrease. Though it explains no more of the variance than did Model I, the coefficient for uniforms is statistically significant (p < .01) and negative. Model III adds the attitudinal variables and an extra 1% of the variance in achievement is explained with preparedness and pro-school attitudes significantly increasing achievement. Finally, Hypothesis Four, stating that student uniforms will increase student achievement, is not supported by these data. In fact, all four of the original hypotheses, derived from the public discourse surrounding the uniform debate, are not supported. Most striking is uniform's significant negative effects on achievement - an outcome of much concern to educators and policy makers.

TABLE 5:Weighted Regression of Academic Preparedness, Pro-School Attitudes,and Peer Pro-School Attitudes on Uniform Use and Other Variables**
 * || Prepare || ProSchol || PeerPro ||

Uniforms and Pro-School Attitudes: Is There a Relationship? Though the hypotheses were not borne out, the authors decided to examine whether uniforms directly impact the development of academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, or peer structures with pro-school norms. Since these variables consistently produce the desired outcomes it is important to assess uniform's effects on these as well. Looking at Table 5, in fact, uniforms do not have any effect on the moderating variables in the analysis. Though academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, and peer norms significantly effect the outcomes studied, uniforms have no effect on the moderating attitudinal variables either.
 * || I || II || I || II || I || II ||
 * Female || .59* || .59* || 1.47* || 1.47* || .43* || .43* ||
 * Asian || .03 || .03 || 1.01 || 1.01 || .42* || .42* ||
 * Black || -.08 || -.08 || 1.45* || 1.45* || .37* || .37* ||
 * Hispanic || -.14 || -.14 || .72 || .72 || .15 || .15 ||
 * F1ses || -.00 || -.00 || -.00 || -.00 || .00 || .00 ||
 * Catholic || .13 || .29 || -.09 || .02 || .01 || .01 ||
 * Privnon || .26 || .30 || .35 || .38 || .13 || .13 ||
 * Privnot || .70 || .70 || 2.52 || 2.52 || 1.17 || 1.17 ||
 * Privrel || .09 || .12 || .36 || .38 || .08 || .08 ||
 * Academic || .32* || .32* || 1.29* || 1.29* || .38* || .38* ||
 * Votech || .02 || .02 || .12 || .12 || -.03 || -.03 ||
 * Othprog || .04 || .04 || .23 || .23 || .12 || .12 ||
 * Rural || .14* || .13* || .22 || .22 || -.01 || -.01 ||
 * Urban || .05 || .05 || .25 || .25 || .02 || .02 ||
 * Uniform1 ||  || -.25 ||   || -.18 ||   || -.01 ||
 * (Constant) || 9.28* || 9.28* || 42.2* || 42.2* || 7.06* || 7.06* ||
 * R2 || .04 || .04 || .07 || .07 || .05 || .05 ||
 * Std. Err. Est || 1.70 || 1.70 || 4.01 || 4.01 || 1.34 || 1.34 ||
 * F-Value || 11.5* || 10.9* || 19.4* || 18.1* || 14.4* || 13.5* ||
 * N || 3776 || 3776 || 3639 || 3639 || 3594 || 3594 ||
 * p < .001, p < .01, * p < .05

TABLE 6:Interaction Effects of Interest on Various Outcomes
 * || Absent || Behavior || Drugs || Std. Test ||
 * uniform1*prepare || .08 || .11 || -.07 || -.29 ||
 * uniform1*proschol || -.00 || .07* || .02 || -.23 ||
 * uniform1*peerpro || .03 || .04 || .01 || -.05 ||
 * uniform1*urban || -.30 || -.17 || -.47 || .76 ||
 * uniform1*f1ses || .00 || -.00 || .00 || -.00 ||
 * uniform1*catholic || .18 || -.15 || -.22 || 1.42 ||
 * p < .001, **p < .01, * p < .05**

Looking at Table 6 only one significant coefficient is found: uniformed kids with high pro-school attitudes actually have worse behavior problems than their counterparts. This is contrary to the expected. Uniforms seemingly have no impact in tandem with those things which are proven effective.
 * Interactions of student uniforms and each of the following variables of interest were computed and entered into a full model (like Model III's in Tables 3 and 4): academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, peer pro-school attitudes, urbanicity, socioeconomic status, and catholic sector. The following questions apply, respectively to the tests of interactions: Do uniformed kids with high academic preparedness significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures? Do uniformed kids with high pro-school attitudes significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures? Do uniformed kids with strong pro-school peer groups significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures? Do uniformed kids in urban areas significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures? Do uniformed kids with high socio-economic status significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures? Finally, do uniformed Catholic kids significantly differ in the desired direction from their counterparts on the dependent measures?

IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION The Discourse/Rhetoric Re-examined Our failure to find a direct effect of uniforms on behavioral outcomes or academic achievement provide cause for a closer examination of the uniform debate. It seems that reformers have seriously considered the educational research showing outcome differentials between public and Catholic school students. However, it is equally apparent that the most superficial policies are those that have been extracted for possible reform efforts. A closer reading of the public versus private school literature would suggest that uniforms are merely symbolic of the communal organization of Catholic schools which, researchers have proposed (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987), is the fundamental cause of the Catholic school advantage. A reconsideration of the Long Beach case sheds light on the flawed logic of uniform proponents' assertions. The descriptive information provided by LBUSD (Appendix A) suggested that school crime was significantly reduced between the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 school years. Between these periods a mandatory uniform policy was established district wide. Seemingly, the correlation between these two events is reason enough for Long Beach administrators to state that a causal relationship exists. While in fact, these two events may be empirically verifiable, the argument that uniforms have caused the decrease in school crime is simply not substantiated. Taking into consideration both the findings provided in this paper and the additional materials from the Long Beach public school system, we would propose an alternative interpretation. What is omitted from the discourse on school uniforms is the possibility that, instead of directly impacting specific outcomes, uniforms work as a catalyst for change and provide a highly visible window of opportunity. It is this window which allows additional programs to be implemented. An examination of the Long Beach case shows that several additional reform efforts were simultaneously implemented with the mandatory uniform policy. These programs include a reassessment of content standards, a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation to develop alternative pedagogical strategies, and the Focused Reporting Project (Kahl, 1996). It seems curious that given these substantive reform efforts, administrators continue to insist that uniforms are the sole factor causing a variety of positive educational outcome. Requiring students to wear uniforms is a change which not only effects students, but school faculty and parents. Instituting a mandatory uniform policy is a change which is immediate, highly visible, and shifts the environmental landscape of any particular school. This change is one that is superficial, but attracts attention because of its visible nature. Instituting a uniform policy can be viewed as analogous to cleaning and brightly painting a deteriorating building in that on the one hand, it grabs our immediate attention but on the other, is, after all, really only a coat of paint. This type of change serves the purpose of attracting attention to schools, it implies that serious problems are existent and necessitate this sort of drastic change, and it seems entirely possible that this attention renews an interest on the parts of parents and communities, and opens the possibilities for support of additional types of organizational change. The juxtaposition of these findings and the ongoing rhetoric in the public debate on school uniforms provides a lens for viewing the effects of public opinion on school reform in general. The nature and magnitude of the support behind the mandatory uniform policies of districts such as Long Beach seem to illustrate the "quick fix" nature of school reform policies in the 1990's. A policy which is simplistic, readily understandable, cost-free (to taxpayers) and appealing to common sense is one which is politically pleasing and hence, finds great support. When challenged with broader reforms, those whose results are not immediately identifiable, those that are costly and demand energy and a willingness to change on the part of school faculty and parents are simply unacceptable.

REFERENCES Bryk, Anthony; V. Lee; and P. Holland. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryk, Anthony and Mary Driscoll. (1988). The High School as Community: Contextual Influences, and Consequences for Students and Teachers. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Coleman, James S. and Thomas Hoffer. (1987). Private and Public High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Department of Justice (1996). Manual on School Uniforms. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Gursky, Daniel. (1996). "'Uniform' Improvement?" The Education Digest, March, 1996, 46-8. Jarchow, Elaine. (1992). "Ten Ideas Worth Stealing from New Zealand." Phi Delta Kappan. 73:394-95. Joseph, Nathan. (1986). Uniforms and Nonuniforms: Communication Through Clothing. New York: Greenwood. Kahl, Kristi. (1996). "Support for Breakaway Teachers May Be the Key to LUBSD Reforms." Found at web site: http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/ Kennedy, Michael. (1995). "Common Denominator: Schools See Less Violence When Kids Wear Uniforms." Los Angeles Times, August, 21, 1995. LaPoint, V., L. Holloman, and S. Alleyne. (1992). "The Role of Dress Codes, Uniforms in Urban Schools." NASSP Bulletin, October 1992, 20-6. Loesch, Paul. (1995). "A School Uniform Program That Works." Principal. 74:28-30. Polacheck, Karin. (1996). "Uniforms Help Solve Many School Problems." Long Beach Press-Telegram. Found at web site: http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/ Scherer, Marge. (1991). "School Snapshot: Focus on African-American Culture." Educational Leadership. 49:17-9. Stover, Del (1990). "The Dress Mess." American School Board Journal. 177:26-9. Thomas, SuSan. (1994). "Uniforms in the Schools: Proponents Say It Cuts Competition; Others Are Not So Sure." Black Issues In Higher Education, October, 20:44-7. Virginia State Department of Education. (1992). Model Guidelines for the Wearing of Uniforms in Public Schools: Report of the Department of Education to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia. House Document No. 27. Workman, Jane and Kim Johnson. (1994). "Effects of Conformity and Nonconformity to Gender-Role Expectations for Dress: Teachers Versus Students." Adolescence. 29:207-23.

APPENDIX A: LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA Table AK-8 School Crime Report SummaryLong Beach Unified School District**


 * Crime Category || # of incidents in 1993-1994 || # of incidents in 1994-1995 || %Change ||
 * Assault/Battery || 319 || 212 || -34% ||
 * Assault with a Deadly Weapon || 6 || 3 || -50% ||
 * Fighting || 1135 || 554 || -51% ||
 * Sex Offenses || 57 || 15 || -74% ||
 * Robbery || 29 || 10 || -65% ||
 * Extortion || 5 || 2 || -60% ||
 * Chemical Substances || 71 || 22 || -69% ||
 * Weapons or Look-alikes || 165 || 78 || -52% ||
 * Vandalism || 1409 || 1155 || -18% ||
 * Dangerous Devices || 46 || 23 || -50% ||
 * Total || 3242 || 2074 || -36% ||

Dependent Measures Absenteeism [ABSENT] F1S13 How many days was R absent from school
 * APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION

Behavior Scale [BEHAVIOR] F1S10C How many times R got in trouble F1S10E How many times R suspended from school F1S9D Got into a physical fight at school Scale created by summing across values of the three variables (min.=0; max.=14; Cronbach's alpha= .66)

Substance Use Scale [DRUGS] F1S77 How many cigarettes does R smoke per day F1S79 # of times R had five drinks or more in a row F1S78B Last 12 months, # of times R drank alcohol F1S78C Last 30 days, # of times R drank alcohol F1S80AC Last 30 days, # of times R used marijuana F1S80AB Last 12 months, # of times R used marijuana Scale created by summing across values of 6 variables (min.=0; max.=22; Cronbach's alpha= .82)

Academic Achievement F12XCOMP Standardized Test Composite (Reading, Math)

Key Independent Measures and Moderating Variables Student Uniform Policy [UNIFORM1] F1C94F Student Uniforms are required (recoded 0=no; 1=yes) Taken from School Component of NELS:88

Pro-School Attitudes [PROSCHOL] F1S12A Feel its ok to be late for school F1S12B Feel its ok to cut a couple of classes F1S12C Feel its ok to skip a whole day F1S12F Feel its ok to get into physical fights F1S12G Feel its ok belong to gangs F1S12J Feel its ok to steal belongings from school F1S12K Feel its ok to destroy school property F1S12L Feel its ok to smoke on school grounds F1S12N Feel its ok to use drugs at school F1S12O Feel its ok to bring weapons to school Scale was created by summing across all reversed variables (min.=12; max.=45; Cronbach's alpha= .81)

Peer Pro-School Attitudes [PEERPRO] F1S70B Among friends, how important is it to study F1S70D Among friends, how important is it to get good grades F1S70F Among friends, how important is it to finish High School Scale was created by summing across the three variables (min.=3;max.=9; Cronbach's alpha=.75)

Academic Preparedness [PREPARE] F1S40A Often go to class without paper/pencil F1S40B Often go to class without books F1S40C Often go to class without homework done Scale was created by summing across three reversed variables (min.=3; max.=12; Cronbach's alpha= .70)

Control Variables Student Background: Gender [FEMALE]: F1SEX Student gender (recoded to 0=male; 1=female)

Minority Status [ASIAN, BLACK, HISPANIC]: F1RACE Student race (recoded to 0=white; 1=black, Asian, or Hispanic)

Socioeconomic Status: F1SES Socioeconomic Status Composite

School Context: School Sector [CATHOLIC, PRIVNON, PRIVNOT, PRIVREL]: G10CTRL1 School Sector (recoded 0=public; 1=Catholic, private non- religious, private religious, or private not ascertained)

Curricular Track [ACADEMIC, VOTECH, OTHPROG]: F1HSPROG High School Program which R is enrolled in (recoded 0=general; 1=academic, vocational-technical, or other program)

School District [URBAN, RURAL]: G10URBAN Type of School District, Diocese, County (recoded 0=suburban; 1=urban or rural)

APPENDIX C: CORRELATION MATRIX OF VARIABLES IN THE ANALYSIS**


 * || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || 11 || 12 || 13 || 14 || 15 || 16 || 17 || 18 || 19 || 20 || 21 || 22 ||
 * Female || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Asian || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Black || ns || -.08 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Hispanic || ns || -.07 || -.13 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * F1ses || ns || ns || ns || .05 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Catholic || ns || ns || ns || ns || .03 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Privnon || ns || ns || -.03 || ns || ns || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Privnot || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Privrel || ns || .06 || -.04 || -.04 || ns || -.03 || ns || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Academic || .04 || .03 || -.04 || -.06 || -.05 || .12 || .06 || ns || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Votech || -.06 || ns || .10 || .03 || ns || -.06 || -.04 || ns || -.04 || -.23 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Othprog || ns || ns || .05 || .06 || .05 || -.04 || ns || ns || ns || -.17 || -.08 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Rural || ns || -.09 || -.07 || -.07 || -.05 || -.17 || ns || ns || -.07 || -.06 || .03 || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Urban || ns || .07 || .20 || .15 || .06 || .30 || .06 || ns || .08 || ns || .03 || .04 || -.42 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Uniform1 || .05 || ns || ns || ns || ns || .69 || .06 || ns || .05 || .09 || -.05 || -.04 || -.16 || .26 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Absent || .09 || -.06 || -.07 || .04 || .04 || -.05 || ns || ns || -.03 || -.10 || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Behavior || -.19 || -.03 || ns || .04 || .06 || -.03 || -.03 || ns || ns || -.18 || .07 || .05 || -.03 || ns || ns || .33 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Drugs || -.08 || -.07 || -.14 || ns || .06 || ns || ns || ns || -.04 || -.12 || ns || ns || ns || -.05 || ns || .28 || .50 || X ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * F12xcomp || .05 || .04 || -.22 || -.14 || -.07 || .10 || .08 || ns || .06 || .39 || -.22 || .13 || -.07 || ns || .05 || -.10 || -.27 || -.14 || X ||  ||   ||   ||


 * Peerpro || .16 || .05 || .08 || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || .13 || -.03 || ns || ns || .03 || ns || -.16 || -.30 || -.31 || .06 || X ||  ||   ||
 * Prepare || .17 || ns || ns || -.03 || -.03 || ns || ns || ns || ns || .10 || -.04 || ns || ns || ns || ns || -.15 || -.33 || -.25 || .12 || .23 || X ||  ||
 * Proschol || .18 || .03 || .11 || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || ns || .14 || ns || ns || ns || .05 || ns || -.26 || -.60 || -.55 || .12 || .42 || .34 || X ||

"School Uniforms: Prevention or Suppression?" **//by Raymond F. Felch III// Consider the following excerpts from the President’s Radio Address to the Nation;[|uniforms and laws] //"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.** Bibliography 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.** =My Notes=
 * Clinton, William J. __Text of Presidential Memo to Secretary of Education on School Uniforms__

On the first day of class this fall, Mulholland Middle School sixth-grader Elizabeth Shamlian wore her new school uniform: blue trousers and a white, collared shirt. Then she went home and told her parents, "I'm never going to wear this again." In the sea of youngsters who cross the open courtyards at Mulholland these days, nobody else is in uniform either. Three years after coming into fashion, uniforms have not proved to bean elixir for Los Angeles city schools. The initial rush has slowed to article. In 1995, 314 Los Angeles city schools embraced the idea, more than any other public school district in the nation. Since then, only 40 more campuses have enlisted. At many schools where uniforms were once the rage, the look has been pushed to the back of the closet. Last week, the New York City Board of Education--which runs the only system in the nation larger than Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict voted to require its half-million elementary school students to wear uniforms, beginning in 1999. New Yorkers hope that uniforms will help keep students safe, inspire professionalism and reduce tardiness, disciplinary problems and materialism--the same kind of goals that swept through California's education community in 1995 when the Legislature made it legal for public schools to require uniforms. However, keeping a student body in uniform has been hampered by federal court rulings that have abolished mandatory policies on free speech grounds. Any parent at a public school can allow their children to dress as they please. Without the support of parents, educators say, uniforms quickly disappear from campus. When uniforms become, in effect, voluntary, "I don't consider it to be a uniform policy," said Randy Ward, state-appointed administrator of the Compton Unified School District who spurred the introduction of uniforms to Compton's troubled schools this year. "If some kids are wearing a uniform and others are not, they might as well be in Raiders jackets and Lakers jerseys."** Experts say the benefits of school uniforms remain unproved and largely anecdotal. **Bill Modzeleski, director of Safe and Drug Free Schools for the Department of Education, said** proper studies have been too difficult and expensive to conduct**. Only about 3% of public schools have uniforms, he said.** Long Beach Unified officials say behavior and punctuality have improved since 1994, when the district became the first public school system in the country to require uniforms. But educational experts say it is unclear what is responsible. "Chances are that uniforms in a school are tied to other factors, "said Myron H. Dembo, a professor of education at USC who studies educational psychology. "The work that parents have to do to get the uniforms forced them to buy into and to support the school. Students could be in bikinis and, if the parents are supportive, the school will do better." Los Angeles Unified set a goal three years ago of having uniforms at all of its 668 schools. So far,** 354 city schools have a uniform policy, most of them elementary schools. Of those, the district cannot say how many students still wear uniforms every day**. Carmen Chavez, owner of Crown School Uniforms, started her Sun Valley business partly on the basis of the new California law three years ago. Although business was very good in the beginning, she said, she now survives largely on parochial school orders. "I can count on the private schools," Chavez said. "In the public school, even if they have uniforms, sometimes all that means is a certain color shirt or pants they can buy at Target."** Millikan Middle School Principal Norman Isaacs, who has soured on uniforms over the past three years, said he is not surprised that interest has declined. "The uniform is like a bandage," he said. "It solves some of the symptoms but not the real problem. I think it is going to gradually fade away." Elizabeth Schroeder, an associate director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California--which sued on behalf of Long Beach parents, making it easier to opt out of the uniform requirement**--said the focus on uniforms is a distraction. "It's an easy way for a school district to approach a problem that has much deeper roots: overcrowding, lack of school books, uncredentialed teachers," said Schroeder, who added that the ACLU is not opposed to optional uniforms in public schools. Still, she added, "it is not possible to correct the evils of the school system by putting a uniform on a 6-year-old." Pacoima Middle School Assistant Principal Robert Krell, who enforces the uniform code at his school, says uniforms are a good place to start. "We have had a huge decrease in tardies and fights," he said. Krell's opinion of the parents of the 12 students excused from wearing uniforms: "They don't care if their children are safe or not."** At Fulton Middle School in Van Nuys, Assistant Principal Lessie Caballero swears by uniforms. "I can't explain exactly why," said Caballero, "but there is a real change in the students when they are in uniform. They are better behaved. They come to school to work." Students, not surprisingly, are not happy to comply. Uniforms, at least among middle school students, are about as popular as high-water pants. The cuffs of Rafael Maiez's pants hang so low they sweep the halls at Fulton as he walks to class. But not for long. At 8:10 on a recent morning, Caballero called Maiez into the school office and made the boy staple up the hem of his navy blue trousers. "This is stupid," the 13-year-old said under his breath. Some seventh-graders at Fulton threatened two weeks ago to boycott the monotony of the school's blue and black pants, as well as the black, white and baby-blue, collared uniform shirt. "If 1,600 students refuse to wear the uniform, there is not much we can do. They will win," Caballero said. But at nearby Mulholland Middle School, where the more casually dressed student body is similar in every other way to Fulton's, Tarin said it would probably make little difference. "I will compare my school's expulsions and tardies to anyone in the district," the principal said. "I like the idea of uniforms. I'd like to see all of my students in them. But I would rather use my time to improve education at this school."
 * Although uniforms are far from dead here, the notion that making all pupils dress alike would eliminate attacks on students wearing gang affiliated colors or styles of clothing seems to have lost steam. "It is not the overriding issue it was then," said Mulholland's principal, Alfredo Tarin. "There was this sense of urgency." Consider one L.A. Unified cluster of schools on the Eastside that includes Boyle Heights, Highland Park and El Sereno. Of 18 campuses listed in district records as having uniforms, only one--Nightingale Middle School--reports that nearly all of its students wear them. Officials at four schools say half or more of their youngsters wear them. At 10 other campuses, officials estimate that less than half of their students wear uniforms each day. Three schools say they have no uniforms at all.
 * There remain Los Angeles city schools where administrators inspect youngsters each morning, sending slackers to the office to change into loaner outfits. Although these advocates say uniforms form a shield against trouble, students roll their eyes at the rule. "I don't think the way you dress is gang-related," said 13-year-old Laura Shebber, an eighth-grader at Fulton Middle School in Van Nuys. No parents at the school have opted out of the uniform requirement. Shebber is a chronic dress code violator, who last week was forced to exchange her blue velour top for a white dress shirt with "Fulton" written on the back in permanent ink. "How you carry yourself is more important," she said.
 * But politicians continue to promote uniforms as a way to instill the order of parochial school life in the unruly world of public education, where the spread of hip-hop styles has many worrying about 8-year-oldsdressing like hoodlums. As recently as last week, President Clinton praised Long Beach's mandatory uniform policy at a news conference releasing the results of the first national survey on school crime. The president first called for public school uniforms in his 1996 State of the Union address, citing Long Beach in the days that followed.**


 * Polk County School Uniforms Home Page

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. How They Did Their Study
 * 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.

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.** Results //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).** Conclusion
 * 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:
 * 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.**

Sept. 2, 2002, 6:38PM

Dressing down Houston's school uniform policies By ADOLFO SANTOS

NOW that students in Houston have returned to school, I thought it would be a good time to evaluate the relationship between school uniforms and student behavior. I have tested the premise that when students wear school uniforms, student conduct improves. The assumption is that in an egalitarian environment -- created by uniform dress codes -- a sense of kinship and cooperation is fostered. This new environment, then, should contribute to the improvement of student behavior. Much to my surprise, this does not appear to happen.

The evidence comes from 28 Houston Independent School District middle schools that changed their dress codes from casual wear to school uniforms during the mid- to late 1990s. All alternative schools and schools with elementary grade components were excluded, leaving the 28 middle schools. To measure student behavior, I relied on HISD data to calculate the average in-school suspension rates (punishment served on school property) and out-of-school suspension rates rates (punishment requiring the removal of the student from the school) for the years before and after the implementation of the school uniform rules. Given that different schools implemented the uniform policy at different times, the average suspension rates were calculated in relation to the year the school implemented the requirement.

The evidence shows that the rates of in-school suspension were decreasing prior to the instituting of uniform requirements -- declining from 40 percent two years prior, to 30 percent the year just before school uniform requirements where implemented. By the second year after the school uniform requirements, however, the average percentage of students receiving in-school suspensions skyrocketed to 49 percent.

Just as dramatic is the average rate of out-of-school suspensions, which were fluctuating around 30 percent before school uniform rules. One year after, however, the average jumps to 40 percent, and 43 percent the year after that.

The suspension rates are a function of the number of times the school reported in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions divided by the total number of students in the school. For example, a school that has 1,000 students and reports 100 in-school suspensions would have an in-school suspension rate of 10 percent.

The data presented here hints at the possibility that school uniforms may actually have a deleterious effect on suspension rates. It is as if students are more likely to misbehave once they are required to wear uniforms. For this reason, it is necessary for schools to evaluate their programs to determine whether the benefits outweigh the dangers.

School districts need to ask: Does a uniform policy contribute to a better learning environment? Does it lead to an improved sense of self-worth on the part of students? And, do school uniforms diminish or improve self-_expression?

It is also necessary to determine if the increased suspension rates are a function of students misbehaving more frequently, or teachers being less tolerant of deviant behavior -- deviant behavior that is much more evident in an environment where all students dress alike. One might cautiously suggest that the wearing of school uniforms may not have changed students for the worse, but it may have changed teachers. Zero-tolerance policies, greater pressures on teachers to have their students do well on standardized tests and a post- Columbine environment also could have contributed to the increased suspension rates that coincided with the wearing of school uniforms.

Given these other factors, it would be premature for schools to abandon uniform requirements. Clearly, school uniforms have been seen as a godsend to low-income parents who have been relieved of the pressures to purchase expensive clothing for their children. And, of course, it is also important to remember that this data says nothing of the impact uniforms have on elementary or high school students, or on academic achievement.

Nevertheless, the point is that sound public policy requires sound analysis, and a solid evaluation of school uniform policies may be called for -- especially if preliminary data suggests that the policies may be more harmful than useful.

Santos is the assistant chair over political science at the University of Houston-Downtown, and a partner in Santos and Associates, a research-based consulting firm.

**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.__**