Dayton+Agendakyle+anderson

= RAHS Note Page =

Summary/Direct Quote
In the case of public schools, uniforms often provided an equalizing effect for the poor who otherwise came to school looking underprivileged.

Connected Topics/Uses
Journal of Research on Christian Education Fall 2006, Vol. 15, No. 2 pp. 143-168 The Dayton Agenda School Uniforms: A Qualitative Analysis of Aims and Accomplishments at Two Christian Schools Michael Firmin, Suzanne Smith, and Lynsey Perry Cedarville Uniwrsitv. Ohio Employing rigorous qualitative research methodology, we studied the implementation of two schools' uniform policies. Their primary intents were to eliminate competition, teach young people to dress appropriately, decrease nonacademic distractions, and lower the parental clothing costs. The young peo- ple differed with adults regarding whether or not the objectives relating to competition and distractions were met. Both adults and young people agreed that the goal of learning to dress more appropriately was met, yet they differed on how accomplishment was achieved—and also on how they understood appro- priate dress. Data from both schools was generally comparable, with four notable differences. 143 144 Firmin, Smith, and Perry School uniforms have been a source of general controversy in public school education in recent years. In 1995, Long Beach, California drew media attention by adopting a mandated uniform policy for all stu- dents in its purview. Within a year, the school district published remark- able results, prompting then President Bill Clinton to visit the schools and include the advocation of uniforms in his 1996 State of the Union Address (Clinton, 1996). The result was that the policy was implemented in 70 schools for about 60,000 students. While some laud uniforms as the wave of the future (Tooms, 2002), others are concerned for the individuality that students sacrifice as outweighing the benefits received in implement- ing uniform policies (Wilkins, 1999). Uniforms are not a new phenomenon by any means. Davidson (1990) provides an in-depth history of school uniforms in the United Kingdom. Following in traditions of universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, school uniforms have identified children with various sehools, whether elite college preparatory, or public schools. In the eases of private schools, the uniforms beeame a means of defining status, and in the case of public schools, uniforms often provided an equalizing eflect for the poor who otherwise eame to school looking underprivileged. Iron- ieally, however, it was the public schools that began the uniform tradition. In early British educational history, aristocrats dressed their children as they pleased and it was actually the common schools that set today's stan- dard for uniforms in elite private institutions. In time, rank and privilege were toned in one's classroom dress. The United States has not experieneed the same historical trend with public school students wearing uniforms to classes. Brunsma and Rockquemore (2001) indieate that Catholic schools in Ameriea possess a relatively long-standing tradition for school uniforms and that these paro- chial schools account for about 65% of the U.S. students under such codes. Public school parents have an apparent perception that sueh stan- dards help make Catholic education successful, including the presenee of safe, secure, and orderly learning environments (Paliokas & Rist, 1996). Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms 145 Brunsma and Rockquemore (2001), however, eontend that in the Catholic education school literature, uniforms are not advocated as being signifi- eant in ereating the "Catholic sehool effeet." Rather, they make a eontri- bution toward the overall effeet via leveling the playing field for mutual respeet of all students since more privileged students are not as easily identified by their elothing or aeeessories. Bodine (2003) indieates that drawing elear conclusions are difficult, however, due to the multiple fac- tors at work simultaneously. Although the United States public sehool system has not experi- eneed a long history with sehool uniforms (Dussel, 2005), the system did for deeades enforee dress eodes. Anderson (2002) indicates that during the 1950s and 1960s, in partieular, sehools were prone to have dress stan- dards, such as forbidding girls from wearing slaeks, requiring partieular lengths for dresses and skirts, blue jean regulations, prohibiting motorey- cle boots or black leather jaekets. and the like. MeCarthy (2001) believes that the Ttnker Supreme Court decision of 1969, forbidding sehools to diseipline students for nonverbal expressions of speeeh unless it disrupted the classroom setting, changed the dress code climate in public education. During the 197O's federal appellate eourts promulgated a set of mixed rul- ings—some of which furthered student rights to freedom-of-expression through ehoiee of clothing. The 1980s, however, curtailed the trend with eourts ruling that students may not dress in ways inconsistent with a local school's mission, although the sehool eould not enforee such policies off campus. Sheer blouses (Stover, 1990), cross-dressing, and gang emblems are eited as examples (DeMitehell, Fossey, & Cobb, 2000). Anderson (2002) delineates seminal eases affeeting the present school uniform movement. As previously stated, Tinker v Des Moines School District (1969) established students' constitutional right for self- expression. Bethel Schools v Fraver (1986) provided schools the right to punish students for using lewd, vulgar, or offensive communication, not- ing that schools had the responsibility to teach the habits and manners of civility. In Caiuulv >• Bossier Schools (1998), the Supreme Court upheld a Fall 2006, Vol. 13, No. 2 146 Firmin, Smith, and Perry schools right to implement a school uniform policy. The requirements for school boards include not censoring student expression as the intent of the poliey and student restrictions should be held to a minimum in accom- plishing school board objectives (Dowling-Scndor, 2002). The present public school uniform movement began in the late 1980s when inner-city schools in Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. experimented with the policy, showing some measurable success (Stanley, 1996). Although there have been surprisingly few methodical research studies assessing the outcomes of uniform policies, some data suggests lowered violence (Gursky, 1996), gang influence (Wade & Stafford, 2003), and academic improvement in students (Elder, 1999; Pate, 1999). However, critics (Wilkins, 1999) suggest that the successes of the independent variable in the studies (uniform policies) are eon- founded. That is, such schools show improvement due to variables such as increased teacher enforcement and involvement with students as well as parental involvement with the school process and system. Advocates and crities alike agree that creating a sense of order (Bruchey, 1998; Brunner, 2006), eohesion (Tooms, 2002), and creating a positive school climate (Murray, 1997) are essential goals for successful education. However, the debate rages as to whether or not a school uni- form policy produces those ends—and if the policy does—then is it the most produective and least restrictive means of doing so? Brunsma (2005) argues persuasively that there is no clear answer to these complex issues. Caruso (1996) otTers the following pros/eons regarding school uniform policies. Arguments for the policy include increasing student attendance, reducing distractions, engendering school spirit, decreased clothing expenses, improved classroom behavior, diminished contributions to juvenile delinquency, heightened school recognition, and increasing aca- demie performance. Arguments against uniforms include the potential of infringements on first amendment rights, administrative power abuse, economic hardships for parents, non-deterrence of gang activity, no effect Journal of Research on Christian Education School L'nifnnns I47 on social class differentiation, and lack of empirical research showing effective outcomes for school uniform policies. Lumsden (2001) notes that most uniform policies in the United States apply only to elementary and middle school students. Evidently, enforcement of such policies can be particularly difficult with older teens, as clothing is considered to be what Eisner (2002) calls "personal signa- tures" (p. 581) vis-a-vis human development. The U.S. Department of Edueation (1996) issued a manual outlining the following recommended policies for successful implementation of new school uniform codes: 1. Get parents involved from the beginning. 2. Protect students' religious expression. 3. Protect students' other rights of expression. 4. Determine whether to have a voluntary or mandatory school-uni- form policy. 5. When a mandatory policy is adopted, determine whether to have an opt-out provision. 6. Do not require students to wear a message. 7. Assist families that need financial help. 8. Treat school unifonns as part of an overall safety program. Huss (2006) reported results from a study conducted in an urban, public elementary school. He found teachers reporting uniforms to pro- mote student learning and to enhance relationships between teachers and students. Expectations of students by teachers also were reported to be improved as a result of the school uniform policy. Students were described as taking their cues from peers, generally reacting congruently with how they perceived their peers vis-a-vis uniform implementation. As aforestated, relatively little empirieal researeh has been eondueted to date for how the implementation of uniform policies have worked and not worked successfully. The researeh that we did find in the literature eon- sisted almost exelusively of quantitative researeh studies utilizing surveys and descriptive statisties eoneeming school attendanee, violations. Fall 2006, Vol. 15. So. 2 148 Firmin, Smith, and Perry debates regarding uniforms boons or banes, and the like (e.g., see Brun- sma, 2002; Brunsma & Roekquemore, 2003). While these are obviously useful data, we see the need for augmenting the literature with qualitative data, helping to gain a phenomenological perspective on school uniform polieies. In addition, we found no outeomes-based researeh literature in one partieular domain of the school uniform population: Christian schools. There are over 1,000 schools belonging to The American Associ- ation of Christian Schools (AACS) and over 5,000 schools eomprising the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). There are no known records by these sehools, nor by independent Christian schools, regarding the number of Christian sehools nationally who have uniform polieies. But as Catholie and other paroehial edueators have instituted uniform policies in their private sehool milieu, so have evangelieal Chris- tian schools—albeit to some unknown degree. Something should be known about this segment of the educational population. Our present study does not provide a panaeea for understanding Christian sehool uni- form polieies, but we believe that the surface needs to be scratched, and the present study is what we hope will be the first in a number of both qualitative and quantitative projeets assessing uniform policies in this set- ting. SAMPLE We selected two private, evangelical Christian schools for con- ducting our study. One sehool was loeated in the Midwest and the other in the Midsouth region of the United States. Since both we and the leadership of both schools wish to protect the identity of the partici- pants in the study, we refer to them in this artiele simply as Midwest and Midsouth. Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms 149 These two schools were selected based on a number of factors. Both arc relatively small (800 students or less in K-12) with similar demographic compositions. The institutions enroll roughly 7-10% minor- ity students, with most students and others associated with the schools being Caucasian, Both institutions are run by a Board of Education which is independent of a church and offer admission to all Christian families, regardless of denomination. The schools are similar in tuition costs, although it is difficult to compare them directly due to factors such as variable costs of living in the regions and tuition discounts for multiple siblings in the schools, for example. Another important variable of simi- larity was that both sehools had implemented school uniforms two years prior to our interviews (although one of the schools used a phase-in approach) and consequently were likely to be in roughly the same devel- opmental stages of progress as they worked through various issues with students, parents, and school personnel. In all, we believe that the two schools were similar enough in strue- ture, flinetion, and demographics to combine the data in eondueting our research. As sueh, we are presenting the data in this article as one study. Limitations for doing this as well as a reporting of signifieant differences between the two sehools are presented later in this article. Also, we wanted sehools for this study to be located in different regions of the country in order to increase the study's external validity. That is, while obviously we do not believe that our findings ean be generalized to every Christian sehool in every region of the United States, we do believe that having two data points, separated by geographieal distance, strengthens our study. RESEARCH METHOD A full cross-section of individuals was interviewed for this study. In partieular, we queried administrators, faculty, staff, students, and parents regarding their perceptions of how the unifonn policy has Fall 2006. Vol. 15. No. 2 150 Firmin, Smith, an J Perry worked, or not worked in their school. Consistent with standard qualita- tive protocol (Flick, 2002), we used purposeful sampling in selecting participants for interviews. Particularly, we identified individuals who were involved in the decision-making and implementation process when assessing adult views. Students were selected on the basis of their apt abilities to articulate perspectives that represented students of their gen- eral cohorts. The data collection process extended throughout an aca- demic school year, and interviews were administered in three waves. Initially, we used semistructurcd interviews for as many persons as pos- sible whom we believed might reasonably have insightful perspectives. After coding and analyzing the data, we followed-up selected individu- als with additional interviews, triangulating information v\hcre war- ranted. Finally, we made a last round of interviews with partieular individuals in order to clarify points or asking them to elaborate on statements made in previous interviews. In the analysis portion of our researeh, we employed inductive methods in order to draw out themes grounded within our transcripts, field notes, and questionnaires. We organized these potential themes into a skeletal outline. Categories within the outline that we were able to sup- port with sufficient observations and interview data were then developed into an enhanced version of our outline. Those points which we were unable to support amply were then either deleted or revised and integrated elsewhere in the reported findings. LIMITATIONS As with all research, the present study suffered from a number of limitations. First, it is difficult to know to what degree our two schools represent the majority of AACS or ACSl sehools. That is, the question of generalizability of findings remains an issue, as it does w ith all qualitative research studies. We do believe, however, that the selected sites provided Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms 75/ US with rich and informing data, an essential eomponent for a qualitative researeh study. Another limitation is that we studied the sehools holistically, rather than as elementary, middle school, and high school entities. Human development changes radieally during the K-12 time frame, and it would have been helpful for us to have teased-out perceptions of children at var- ious developmental stages. The same may be true for parental perceptions vis-a-vis in whieh grade(s) their children attended. The school officials preferred that we not engage in participant observation with the children due to concerns for disruption of normal sehool activities. Nonetheless, we believe that adding this element to our study would have added particularly rich insight. Using ethnographic techniques of shadowing the ehildren and entering parts of their daily worlds would have been a logistieal challenge, but one we believe profit- able if possible. Also, we are deliberately not including physical descrip- tions of the school facilities due to concerns for revealing the locale, and consequently, the identities of our students in the study. The names used in the artiele, obviously, are pseudonyms. RESULTS The tntents of the Uniform Policy Interviews of the sehool personnel as well as reading minutes from meetings, letters, broehures, and other corroborating data showed that the sehool uniform policy was established in order to accomplish four objeetives. These were to eliminate competition, to have students dress appropriately, to deerease extraneous distractions from the learn- ing environment, and to lower the costs of clothing children during school hours. Fall 2006. Vol. 15. Xo. 2 152 Firmin, Smith, and Perry Eliminate Competition Explicit reasons were provided to students and parents for moving to a uniform policy. However, competition repeatedly showed-up as a theme relative to the prominent motivation for school uniforms in our sam- ple. As one superintendent stated: "It lists in our handbook about ten rea- sons for doing this [having a uniform], but primarily it is designed to cut down on competitiveness," A former board member and parent likewise said: "The uniform poliey, as I reeall, was the combination of a eouple of things. The first thing I remember was to address the competition issue." By competition, sehool personnel meant that students compare one another relative to style and elothing that they wear. Consequently, judg- ments are made about the other children based on elothing. An athletic director affirmed: "The point was to help the kids feel more equal by cut- ting down on the name-brands and things like that." The notion of name brands arose repeatedly in our interviews, sueh as a principal stating: We also want to avoid eeonomie elassifieations. We want our students to respeet eaeh other for who they are and the person rather than what brand they are wearing, and we want to elimi- nate the possibilities of that as mueh as we ean. The sehool personnel did not appear to be eoncemed with the aetual brands of elothes that students wear. In faet, after sehool hours there seems to be no eoneem about this matter. However, during sehool hours, leadership wants to remove as many soeioeeonomie distinetions as they ean. This was artieulated by one sehoors Direetor of Community Relations and Advaneement: "We also didn't want to have a situation where kids with diftcrent eeonomie levels eould easily be distinguished. The ehild that eould wear the Tommy Hilfiger type of shirt versus the one that eould not." Leveling the pereeived financial playing field, therefore, seems to be an important theme in why these sehools implemented the uniform polieies. Note a eomment by a superintendent's administrative Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniform.^ assistant: "Everybody is the same and that's the only reason uniforms are instigated. They want everybody to be on the same level ... and I think that's a good thing." Dre.<is Appropriately Unlike many publie sehool eounterparts, the leadership at the Christian sehools espouse some absolutes regarding dress. Obviously they reeognize taste, preferenees, and the like—but beyond that—there is a pereeption of morality regarding dress. A sehool nurse stated it in the following manner: I believe that appropriate dress retleets morals and personal standards and I feel like our students aren't neeessarily mature enough at this point in their lives to make those deeisions and that we as a sehool are striving to stand for something and that they have to reflect that in the way that they dress. Modesty was a central theme here, as noted, for example, by an English teaeher: "I think a main reason for this goal was to address the modesty issue. A lot of girls were wearing low-cut shirts and tight pants." As evangelical Christian schools, the administration takes literally por- tions of the Bible such as 1 Peter 3:1-5 teaching that modest apparel should be the daily norm. A junior/senior high teacher stated: The intent or ideal of the policy of the dress code is an approved garment or garment styles that is modest and there- fore not distraeting and 1 think that if the dress eode worked the way it's supposed to, modesty wouldn't be an issue. In addition to modesty, teaehing appropriate dress habits also was stressed in this domain. For example, a business manager, when queried Fall 2006, Vol. 75. No. 2 154 Firmin, Smith, and Peny about the intent of the uniform policy indieated: "We're trying to teaeh them what it's like to go out into the business world." In a more plenary deseription, but making the same general point, an elementary prineipal stated the following: Dressing appropriately for the environment in whieh you are in is an important eomponent for all of life. If you're going swim- ming, a bathing suit is appropriate. If you are going to a senior prom, then a prom dress is appropriate. If you're in an educa- tional environment, elothing that matehes with the environ- ment in whieh you are is appropriate. Decrease Distractions Reviewing the schools' materials provides a clear picture that the institutions in our study are foeused entities. Literature makes it elear that aeademies have a strong emphasis throughout the eurrieulum. Conse- quently, sehool personnel indieated that removing preoecupations from the aeademie and spiritual foeus of students' daily lives was another rea- son for implementing uniforms. In an elementary principal's own words, "We want the best learning environment that we can have, so we want to eliminate as many distractions from the learning process as we can. That's another reason for the dress eode." A former board member reiterates the point when saying: "The hope would be that students would become more focused on their academics rather than what pair of jeans their buddy has on," Lower Costs The fourth prominent reason given for implementing a uniform poliey was to lower the costs of ehild elothing expenses tor parents. A seeretary we interviewed captured this thought as follows: "It was made a Journal of Research on Christian Education Sehooi Uniforms goal, 1 think, because it helped cut down the costs on brand-name cloth- ing, especially for some of the parents who are barely living off their pay- check." Providing clothes for multiple children attending over 160 days of classes per year, obviously can be expensive, especially if the children wear designer outfits. However, wearing hand-me-downs from one sib- ling to the next can be more palatable among children with school uni- forms, as noted by one administrator, "It was an economic benefit to the family because there were pass-down opportunities if we had a standard clothing pattern." The Results of the Uniform Policy After understanding the intents of establishing the uniform policy, we engaged in another round of interviews with participants. This time, we attempted to have them assess for us, from their own perspeetivcs. to what degree they believe the intents have or have not been accomplished since the uniform poliey was established. For eaeh of the main four intents (deseribed above), we provide perspectives of the school/parents and then the students" views. Eliminate Competition: School/Parents Perspectives From both the parents and sehool personnel vantage points, the school uniform poliey has aeeomplished the aim of eliminating eompeti- tion. One parent quipped: "My kids were in a public sehool last year and the peer pressure of who wears what—it was high. But here, they're just like 'is it black, or red, or burgundy?' It's very simple." Likewise, another parent stated: "I think we've probably aehieved the original goal and that was to remove peer pressure as far as the eompetition." The sehool leadership deseribes partieular satisfaetion with aeeomplishing this goal. A business manager stated: "One doesn't seem Fall 2006. Vol. 15. No. 2 156 Firmin, Smith, and Ferry prettier or more popular because of their elothing or something. They're all dressed alike." A principal takes this further: When the teaeher says you look niee today, she's looking at your smile and she's looking at your clean hair. She's not look- ing at the S50 dress you have on or the S80 dress you have on and the kids put that aside. Everybody's dressed somewhat alike, in the same standard, so it's [competition] like a non- issue. A superintendent shares the same sentiment: "One of the things that uni- form dress accomplishes is that you're pretty much the same as far as the type of clothing you wear and you get rid of this perception that because you have a certain type of blouse or a certain pair of trousers that you have more money or greater status." Eliminate Competition: Student Perspectives The students were not as eonvinccd as the parents and sehool staff, however, that the uniform poliey has eliminated competition. Some, sueh as Steve, indicated that there was little effeet in changing to the uni- form dress eode: "1 never felt like I experienced peer pressure in the first plaee. So, uniforms haven't really changed that either." However, others state that competition still exists. Amy says: "The eliques, the popular people, have like Ameriean Eagle stuff and wear tighter stuff and things like that." The pressure that students feel may be more subtle than it was before unifonns. Cassandra states, "Well it's about the same as before; you still have the pressure to buy niee jewelry and accessories," and Megan concurs: "1 can see where you'd still feel pressure of having the best ear or the best jewelry and shoes." In sum, the young people in our study are not nearly as convinced as the adults that uniforms have aehieved the goal of eliminating eompetition among them. To at least Journal of Raearch on Christian Education School Uniforms 157 some degree, we eonelude, human nature extends its forces despite the environment generated. Dress Appropriately: School/Parents Perspectives The adults seem to feel that the objeetive of students learning to dress appropriately has been aeeomplished. A parent says: "Well, with the girls it's made a difference. Now, I don t know if it has affected them out- side the elassroom neeessarily, but inside it's helped." Learning whieh elothes are best suited for particular situations is an important lesson being taught, according to a principal: One thing that is being fulfilled even from kindergarten clear up is that students are being given and I think aeeurately per- eeiving the idea that there are different types of clothing for different types of aetivities and different types of environments and many oecupations require a uniform, nurses, many doe- tors, the military, even business exeeutives. An assistant to one of the administrators eoneurs: I think being in a dress eode sort of gives them an idea of how to dress when they get out of sehool and go on in their life how to dress appropriately. Not neeessarily in that eode, but how to dress nicely and how people perceive you in those elothes. Dress Appropriately: Student Perspectives The students seem to concur with the general idea of dressing appropriately—but from a eompletely different angle. In partieuiar, they interpret the construct of dressing appropriately as being modest. None of our students diseussed the notion of learning that some elothes are more Fall 2006, Vol. 15, No. 2 158 Firmin. Smith, and Perry apt for various occasions. Rather, they related modesty as the prime accomplishment in this domain. Note the following comments when stu- dents were queried regarding the dress-appropriate objeetive: Jason: I think it looks more modest than just regular sehool stuff. Susan: It encourages it because the shirts that we wear are pretty modest. They all eome up high. Peter: I think it has made the girls more modest because they have absolutely no low-eut shirts and kind of takes away from the tight pants thing. Christine: It's hard to not be modest when you buy uniforms from Land's End, John: I think that without uniforms we would see a lot of provoeativeness ... I think that uniforms do promote modesty. In sum, sehool staflf/parents and students seem to agree that the uniform poliey aeeomplishes the aim of dressing appropriately—but for very dif- ferent reasons. The adults' responses focused more on how people should dress for the appropriate occasion, whereas the young people foeused squarely on modesty issues as being "appropriate" dress. Decrease Distractions: School/Parents Perspectives Parents and sehool personnel were united in their perspeetive of uniforms accomplishing the deereasing-distraetion aim. A principal said that it "gives the kids one less thing to worry about and sweat over," and a parent eommented that it "freezes up some of those mental eyeles so tlicy are turned more towards academies," and one of the sehool nurses agreed: "I think that by making everybody eome in uniforms, looking alike, it takes away a lot of those different distractions." A fmaneial employee provided this more complete reply: "The clothing does not distract Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms 159 beeause everyone wears and basieally looks the same so the elothing does not distraet if the girls' shirts are modest... I think it does have an impact. There are no distractions in the elassrooms pertaining to clothing." Decrease Distractions: Sttident Perspectives Much in the same way that adults were united in their perceptions that uniforms resulted in decreased distractions, students showed solidar- ity that there has been no change in this domain, Eric claims, "I do good in aeademies in or out of uniforms; I don't really think that they enable me to do better," and Ashley agrees: "1 don't really see a differenee. Everyone says that there is, that they help you eoneentrate better. I don't know." Note that students do not elaim uniforms make matters worse rel- ative to distractions, only that there is no ehange. Ellen says: "It [uni- forms] really hasn't impacted it. If you're into academies and make good grades, you're still going to do that no matter what you wear. And if you weren't into aeademies before, uniforms aren't going to ehange that either," Thomas states that he is oblivious with or without uniforms to extraneous stimuli: The only way that I ever paid attention to people in the elass- room was when they had a big spot on their pants or some- thing. But I just worry about my studies in the elassroom and not really what everybody's wearing around me. On this point, therefore, adults and students differ in their per- spectives. Parent and sehool personnel laud the aecomplishment of the deerease-distraetion aim, but students claim no noticeable differenees. We do not know, of eourse, whether any real differences oeeurred as a result of the ehange in clothing standards. Different perceptions, howe\ er, are noteworthy on this point. Fall 2006, Vol. 15. No. 2 160 Firmin. Smith, and Perry Lower Costs: School/Parents Perspectives Since students generally did not pay for their own clothing, we did not interview them regarding this point. The adults mostly had eon- sensus that uniforms saved them money in comparison to what they spent before the uniform poliey was enacted. One parent stated: "I think we probably spent less money .,,1 thinks it's fair to say that we spend a lot less money on clothing than probably parents that have children in a school that does not require the dress eode," Another parent concurred: But it's been very favorable fmaneially and the uniforms are very durable ... we know that we would definitely be in trou- ble with today's styles and how expensive things are, espe- cially with her [parent's daughter| trying to keep in the eompetitive world with the girls. While there was consensus on the fmaneial efTieaey of uniforms, a number of parents and some sehool staff disagreed, feeling that uni- forms cost more. A prineipal, for example, stated: "I think 'lowering eosts' was a selling point. Maybe later it will help when we have had uni- forms longer. But right now, it's probably costing most parents more money," A parent agreed: "In my opinion, it was not going to help me. It was actually going to raise my costs. But I'm still kind of weighing that out." Some Differences Found Between the Two Schools As aforestated, there was general consistency in data collected between the Midwest and Midsouth schools. However, we took note of four partieular differences in our results relating to eaeh institution. In partieular, there were two unique fmdings in the Midwest sehool and two exclusive fmdings in the Midsouth school. Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms Positive Testimony (Midwest Only) Parents and staff from the Midwest sehool indieated believing that uniforms enhanced the spiritual reputation of the sehool to the non- religious community. An office worker, for example, stated: "1 think prob- ably the most important thing to me about a dress eode is that we are rep- resenting the school in a certain manner that gives a good light to the community and we are representing God as well." A parent reiterated this point in terms of being a witness: When they are out in our society, they're representing ... [the sehool] .,, and we hope that with them being in those uniforms it would be a reminder to them that they are from a Christian school and they are to put forth a Godly appearanee as a wit- ness. A staff person at the Midwest sehool made the same general point, but relating the matter to eulture and separation: We are ealled to be in this world, but not of it and really try- ing to teach our students again to set a standard that ,,. even though there are a lot of things in culture that they see around them that we need to be about setting a standard that elearly defines us as being different from the rest of the world. We do not imply, of eourse, that partieipants at the Midsouth school are unconcerned for how their uniform poliey affects their testi- mony to non-Christian sehool people. Rather, we are taking note that only the Midwest sehool interviewees particularly made mention, repeatedly, of this point. We do not have a elear explanation for the phenomenon at present, but believe that it is worthy of note and may prove useful for later researehers furthering our study. Fall 2006, Vol. 15. No. 2 162 Firmin, Smith, and Perry Inconsistent Enforcement (Midwest Only) While lew people in the Midsouth school mentioned enforcement as a salient issue. Midwest interviewees frequently raised this as a prob- lem area. Laura quipped: "They should either be enforced or we shouldn't have them at all." Moreover, the school employee stated: I don't like the way these kids are looking. I think we'd be bet- ter to change the dress code. We should change it or we should enforee it. I definitely don't think that we should leave it the way they are. In later interviews, we asked what seemed to be the main problem in this realm. Consistency was the resounding reply. A parent put it this way: "It's not enforced by those who need to be enforeing it. It is a hit and miss. Some get by with it and some do not ... either eall it aeross the board or don't have it." While a few v\ere ready to overturn the uniform poliey over inconsistency, most of our partieipants from the Midwest sehool simply wanted what they perceived to be a problem area resolved. We spent con- siderable time attempting to assess u hy this was a seeming problem for the Midwest and not the Midsouth sehool. Our eonelusion related to the different polieies in how elothes are purchased. In the Midsouth sehool, parents purehase all elothes through Land's End. Evidently, the school then reeeives a portion of Ihe profits made through the sales. One result of this protoeol is a relatively straight- forward guideline of what is and what is not aeeeptable. That is, students must wear a relatively narrow range of selected elothes. Anything outside of those parameters is easily spotted and addressed by sehool personnel. The Midwest sehool, in contrast, sets more general guidelines of what conforms to uniform standards, then parents are free to purchase elothes where they ean find them at the best rates. Consequently, mueh greater variability exists when students arrive at sehool in their uniforms. Journal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms J63 This, we believe, ereates a more difficult situation for rule enforeement sinee staff must interpret whether or not eertain elothes, selected by stu- dents, do or do not meet eode. Consequently, we believe this is the reason more negative reaction was shared with us in the interviews regarding consistency issues with the Midwest than Midsouth school. Higher Costs (Midsouth Only) Few people in the Midwest sehool protested regarding eost issues in converting to a uniform dress standard. In contrast, we heard many more eomments such as this one from a parent, "it has added to the cost of my kids clothing" from the Midsouth participants regarding the change. A Midsouth principal confessed: "I think many parents will agree that if you have female uniforms, it's probably cheaper to do this. However, if you have boy students, it may be more expensive." Sometimes the negative reaction from parents was quite strong, such as the following: Honestly, I think these uniforms have just been another way to take in revenue for the sehool. It has definitely been a fmaneial burden. Some of the administration has said that it helps to lower tuition—well, I haven't seen that at all. Kids still have to wear clothes outside of sehool, so this just adds to the expense. In pursuing this matter in more depth with a Midwest prineipal, we received helpful clarity as to why less negative reaction occurred. Consider: The fact that we do not mandate that all of our unifonn items come from a speeific unifonn supply company makes the pos- sibility of it being economically feasible to families mueh greater. The fact that we have a consignment shop has saved me hundreds of dollars. When 1 went to the consignment shop Fall 2006. Vol. 15. No. 2 164 Firtnin, Smith, and Perry last week, I bought nine items for my two ehildren for S22. You ean't get that anywhere else and they're in very good eon- dition.... [It's the] good ole hand-me-downs system that we've used for years and with uniform items that are only worn dur- ing the sehool day and then you take them off when you get home ... they hold up better. Consequently, it is interesting that the Midsouth partieipants do not seem to experience significant difHeulties with issues relating to consistency of enforcement. But they pay for that benefit—literally. That is. the Mid- south parents pay more money for the benefit of having their uniforms more standardized. This, evidently, is a mixed blessing among the partici- pants. Protnotes Safety I Midsouth Only) Few participants voiced safety as an important consideration fac- tor in adopting a uniform policy. Obviously everyone is concerned with safety, and we believe the partieular demographies of the Midwest sehool make uniforms to be less of an issue in this regards. However, the Mid- south participants addressed this as a signifieant benefit for adopting uni- forms. The elementary principal stated: If I see some shenanigans in our parking lot with no uni- form, I don't know if they're our kids or some other sehool or whoever. But at this point, if theres kids walking across our campus, I know they're ours, which address the safety issue. The high school principal, also responsible for campus safety, concurs: "I know that sehools I've been in, you know large sehools, I go in a luneh room where there are several hundred kids all wearing all kind of Jottrnal of Research on Christian Education School Uniforms J65 things—someone who doesn't belong there wouldn't necessarily stand out. But if I go over there and they're all wearing pretty much the same thing, if there's an outsider, they're going to stand out." CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH In summary, the primary intents of establishing a uniform policy at the Midwest and Midsouth sehools was to eliminate competition, teaeh young people to dress appropriately, deerease non-academie distractions, and lower the elothing eosts of attending a private sehool. The young peo- ple differed with adults regarding whether or not the objectives relating to eompetition and distraetions were met. In partieular, sehool personnel/ parents believed the aims were met, while the students did not. Moreover, both adults and young people agreed that the goal of learning to dress more appropriately was met, yet they differed on how aeeomplishment was achieved. The school/personnel talked more in terms of elothing selection for various occasions, whereas the students talked strietly in terms of modesty. Finally, parents overall seemed to feel that sehool uni- forms saved money, although a voeal minority felt that the eosts inereased. Data from both sehools was generally comparable, with four notable differences. The Midwest sehool interviewees spoke of uniforms being a positive testimony to non-Christian individuals in the eommunity and there was an ineonsistent enforeement problem at that school. A num- ber of Midsouth school participants complained of higher eosts with a uniform poliey and they also noted that safety has been enhanced sinee ehildren began wearing uniforms to sehool daily. We eonelude with stating the need for replieation of this research study. If our findings have external validity, then we would expect others to uneover similar patterns in other Christian schools. Although our study will always be unique in many aspects and never truly reprodueible, we Fall 2006, Vol. 15, Xo. 2 166 Firmin, Smith, and Perry trust that it stirs a heuristic call for replication, which is the ultimate test of qualitative research validity (Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor, & Tin- dall, 1995). ACKNOWLEDGMENT This paper was presented the 16th annual Ethnographic and Qual- itative Research in Education Conference in Albany, NY. REFERENCES Anderson, W. (2002). School dress codes and uniform policies. Policy Report, 4 ERICED-99-CO-OOll. Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1995). Qualitative tnethods in psychology: .4 research guide. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Bodine, A. (2003). School uniforms, academic achievement, and uses of research. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 67-7 \. Bruchey, S. (1998). Out of unilorm. Village Voice. 43. 27. Brunner, M. W. (2006). School uniforms are a good idea. American School Board Journal, /9i(10), 16. Brunsma, D. L. (2002). School uniforms: A critical review of the literature. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delia Kappa International. Brunsma. D. L. (2005). Uniforms in public schools: .-) decade of research and debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Brunsma, D. L., & Rockquemore, K. A. (2001). Eflects of student uniforms on attendance, behavior problems, substance use, and academic achievement. The Journal of Edticational Research, 92, 53-62. Brunsma, D. L. & Rockquemore, K.. A. (2003). Statistics, soundbites, and school uniforms: A reply to Bodine. The Journal of Educational Research. 97, 72- 77. Jourtial of Research on Christian Education School Unifonns /(57 Caruso, P. (1996, September). Individuality vs. conlbmiity: The issue hehind school uniforms. \.4SSP Bulletin, 83-88. Clinton, W. J. (1996, March). Remarks to the community in Long Beach. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. 32, 369-374. Davidson, A. (1990). Blazers, badges and boaters: A pictorial history of .school uniform. Hants, England: Scope Books. DeMitehell, T. A., Fossey, R., & Cobb, C. (2000). Dress codes in the public schools: Principals, policies and precepts. Journal of Law & Education, 29. 31-49. Dowling-Sendor, B. (2002, March). School law: School uniforms redux. Ameri- can School Board Journal, 37-38, 47. Dussel, I. (2005). When appearances are not deceptive: A comparative history of school uniforms in Argentina and the United States (nineteenth - twentieth centuries). Paedigogia Hi.Uorica, 41, 179-195. Eisner, E. W. (2002, April). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan. 576-583. Elder, D. L. (1999). Evaluation of school uniform policy at John Adams and Tru- man Middle Schools for Albuquerque Public Schools. Alhuquerque: The Department of Research, Development & Accountability. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gursky, D. (1996). "Uniform" improvement? Education Dige.<it, 61, 46-48. Huss, J. A. (2006, June). The role of school uniforms in creating an academically motivating climate: Do uniforms influence teacher expectations.' Paper presented at the 18th annual Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Conference, Cedarville, OH. Lumsden, L. (2001, May). Uniforms and dress-code policies. ERIC Digest No. 148, EDD00036. McCarthy, M. M. (2001). Restrictions on student attire: Dress codes and uni- forms. Educational Horizons, 79, 155-7. Murray, R. K. (1997, December). The impact of school unifonns on school cli- mate. SASSP Bttlletin. 106-112. Paliokas, K. L., & Rist, R. C. (1996). School uniforms: Do they reduce vio- lence—or just make us feel better? Education Weekly. 75(1), 37, 52. Fall 2006, Vol. 15. No. 2 168 Firmin, Smith, and Perry Pate, S. S. (1999, December). The influence of a mandatory school uniform pol- iey. Paper presented al the annual meeting of the Association for Career and Technical Education, Orlando, FL. Stanley, M. S. (1996, August). School uniforms and safety. Education & Urban Society 28, 424-435. Stover, D. (1990). The dress mess. American School Board Journal, 177, 26-29, 33. Tooms, A. (2002). Those kids' are our kids. The American School Board Journal, 189, 56-58. US. Department of Education. (1996). Manual on schoot uniforms. Washington, DC: Author. ED 387 947. Wade, K. K., & StafTord, M. M. (2003). Public school uniforms: Effect on percep- tions of gang presence, school climate, and student self-perceptions. Edu- cation and Urban Society, 35, 399-420. Wilkins, J. (1999). School uniforms. Humanist, 5^. \9-Tl. Michael W. Firmin, PhD is professor and chair of the psychology depart- ment at Cedarvllle University in Cedarville, OH. Suzanne Smith and I.ynscy Perry completed their BA degrees in psychol- ogy at Cedarville. Journal of Research on Christian Education