g-drive

NOT FOR SCHOOL UNIFORMS: Opponents of school uniforms in public schools believe that required outfits limit students’ freedom of expression. They also believe the cost of school uniforms is an unfair additional expense for parents, who already pay for public education in the form of taxes. Uniforms can especially be a financial burden for poorer families.

THE ANSWER TO VIOLENCE IN AMERICAN **SCHOOLS** OR A CHEAP EDUCATIONAL REFORM? Media stories about a nationwide **school** epidemic, in which assaults on teachers are frequent and children are routinely killed over designer clothing, have been constant over the past few years. These reports have placed pressure on **schools** and politicians to act quickly, before the situation gets out of control. Toward that end, the adoption of **school** **uniforms** has seemed to offer a visible means of restoring order to the nation's classrooms--a quick and ready solution to the problem of public **schools** in a rapid state of decline. Four years ago, Long Beach, California, drew national attention as the first public-**school** district to adopt mandatory **school** **uniforms**. After just one year, dramatic decreases in violence and discipline problems, as well as higher test scores, were reported. President Clinton visited Long Beach in 1995 and subsequently urged all **schools** to consider mandatory **school** **uniforms**. The advantages were outlined in the Manual on **School** **Uniforms**, which the president instructed the Department of Education to distribute to all 16,000 **school** districts in the country. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton said, "If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public **schools** should be able to require their students to wear **uniforms**." Since then, **school** **uniforms** have been upheld as the long-awaited policy tool for solving the crisis of **school** violence. In October 1998, **uniforms** were endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors' National Action Plan on **School** Violence and Kids at a national summit on **school** violence. The October 15, 1998, USA Today reports significant drops in crime and increases in student performance in **schools** that have implemented **uniform** policies. In particular, it cites figures such as a 91 percent drop in assaults, thefts, vandalism, and weapon and drug violations in Long Beach since 1991. And the fact that the policy has only been in effect since 1994 suggests that crime was already on the way down before it was introduced. So before other districts jump on the bandwagon, it would seem that more research should be undertaken to pinpoint whether a **uniform** policy alone is truly enough to end **school** violence and improve student performance, as is being suggested, or if the support for **uniforms** is just an economical solution designed to mask the true magnitude of the problem. Has any meaningful discussion taken place on the issue? Have **school** administrators examined the unenforceable aspects of a **uniform** policy and the other inadvertent consequences of requiring all students to dress alike? The following is a list of benefits described in the Manual on **School** **Uniforms** and counterarguments showing that most of these are unenforceable and don't benefit anyone other than politicians looking for a cheap and easy diversion from the deep-rooted issues underlying today's social problems: [|Decreasing violence and theft--even life-threatening situations --among students over designer clothing or expensive sneakers.] For this to occur, there would have to be a clause in the dress code stating that no designer clothing or expensive sneakers could be worn as part of the **school** **uniform**. It should not be assumed that, just because **uniforms** require certain colors, children will abandon all interest in designer labels. When I was in **school** in England, the **uniform** included a white blouse and black V-neck sweater, which could be purchased from any store. Consequently, there were students who purchased black sweaters with Lacoste and Fila logos on the chest, while other students wore plain black, nameless brands. The distinction between groups based on the logos on their sweaters was widely acknowledged and was even the basis of cliques that persisted throughout high **school**. It is likely that, whatever **uniform** is required in American **schools**, children will also be able to find clothing displaying emblems of their choice. Banning brands, labels, or insignia--as has been the case in Long Beach **schools**--means that **school** personnel will be involved in constant trivial disputes over the permissibility of such things as a half-inch flag emblem above the back pocket of a pair of pants. This will also cause problems for children who buy less-expensive clothing, as cheaper brands also make clothing with visible emblems. Also, the very thing President Clinton referred to in his State of the Union Address--namely, designer jackets--would be impossible to prevent unless **schools** require jackets to be purchased only from specific **school**-**uniform** outlets. This requirement would be costly and unenforceable, and even the strictest **uniform** policies around the world have not gone as far as to specify the type of jacket that can be worn over the **uniform** when the student is walking to and from **school**. To eliminate sneaker-related violence, sneakers would have to be banned altogether in **schools**, as it is virtually impossible to buy a nameless brand of sneakers. The assumption is presumably that forty minutes of gym class would not be long enough for thieves to notice who owns the expensive sneakers. This issue is probably already a thing of the past, as boots are increasingly replacing sneakers as the footwear of choice for many teenagers. And even the boots chosen are those with visible logos that identify the brand. This may be why Long Beach **schools** have gone as far as banning logos on shoes; but, again, this also seems to be problematic for children wearing cheaper brands, which display the brand name on the shoe. [|Helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school.] Even if all students wear the **school** **uniform**, teachers will still be involved in constant battles to ban adornments seen as gang-affiliated. It is unlikely that students will admit that an adornment signifies their gang membership, so all teachers will need to keep abreast of different gangs' insignia and latest accessories. It seems a lot simpler to just have a general rule against gang-related garb in **schools**. This could be more easily achieved by forbidding the wearing of any nonessential accessories, such as bandannas and pagers, rather than implementing a whole **school** uniform to combat the problem. If it is just the gang "look" that **schools** want to abolish, this could be a harder problem to overcome--khaki pants (a popular choice for **school** **uniforms**) can be bought in baggy styles and, like jeans, can be worn hanging from the hips. In fact, the whole topic of clothing is a superficial issue, as gangs cannot be eliminated simply by forbidding the wearing of gang colors. Gang members will just not be recognizable to other gang members for six hours a day, which does nothing to solve the problem of gang violence on a wider scale. [|Instilling students with discipline.] If instilling discipline is the aim, then it makes sense to follow the lead of the two most discipline-instilling institutions: prisons and the military. Of course, if the aim is to teach students to be able to think for themselves and acquire the skills needed to direct their own behavior based on informed choices and personal decision-making (something prohibited in both prisons and the military), then maybe we should reconsider. Discipline procedures designed to assert teachers' authority are likely to disrupt the teacher-student relationship and cause further hostility toward authority figures. Discipline should not be founded on fear of authority, as this type of social control doesn't prepare students for the democratic society in which they will become adults. To be able to live in a democratic society, students must understand that rules serve to give everyone equal rights and that these rules ensure society's safety and well-being. A more humanistic way of instilling discipline would be to teach students right from wrong, the purpose of rules, and the consequences of breaking those rules. Understanding these concepts requires insightful and reflective thinking, and these are skills students should be learning in **school** to help them in their future roles as adults. [|Helping parents and students resist peer pressure.] This point refers to the pressure to buy expensive name-brand clothing. It is unfortunate that parents are at the mercy of their children's desires, a result of billion-dollar advertising campaigns. The drive to acquire designer-label clothing is a desire imposed by the mass media onto poor inner-city teenagers. Advertisers have long been aware that the culture of consumption has given the underprivileged a way to compensate for feelings of failure in a society that values material wealth. It should be the role of **schools** to teach children about the way they are manipulated by the mass media and targeted by advertisers as a susceptible market niche. Perhaps enlightening them about the use of sweatshop laborers in Vietnam who work for fifteen cents an hour in health-hazardous conditions to make $120 Nike sneakers would be enough to deter some students with a conscience. Parents and students can be taught to resist peer pressure to buy expensive name-brand clothing through education about the true creators of this pressure. Creating a diversion from the true roots of the problem may help politicians but, as long as advertisers continue to use athletic heroes to induce inner-city youth to buy their products, **school** **uniforms** can do little to help parents and students. [|Helping students concentrate on their school work.] The idea is that if students don't have to think about what they are going to wear to **school** each day they will be able to focus on learning in **school**. This notion is simply ludicrous. For many children living in homes where abuse, neglect, and criminal activity are daily occurrences, deciding what to wear is probably the least of their worries. If **schools** want to solve personal problems in the lives of their students to help them "concentrate on their **school** work," there are many other issues that should rate higher on the list of priorities than eliminating dress concerns. When students leave **school** and enter the world of work, they will have to wake up every day and decide what to wear. It's a decision made by every human being in all cultures around the world. Students should not be denied the opportunity to participate in a decision-making process that they will need to use for the rest of their lives. It is a basic skill: deciding what to wear and being able to combine this decision with some other activity, such as **school** work or paid work. The two are not mutually exclusive, and it is absurd to assume that focus on one will detract attention from the other. The October 15, 1998, USA Today reports that teachers felt **uniforms** contributed to higher academic achievement because students were not distracted by the clothes of their classmates. Once again, this is a skill students need to learn in **school**, as no employer is going to accept that an employee produced inadequate work because they were "distracted" by the clothes of their coworkers. [|Helping school officials recognize intruders who come to the school.] Most of the **uniforms** adopted across the country seem to be quite similar in that they require navy or khaki pants for boys and a choice of solid-colored shirts. So to be recognized as an intruder, the individual would have to be dressed in clothes that don't resemble a **school** **uniform** of any kind. Since there will always be children in each **school** who exercise their legal right to choose how to dress, there will be no way of differentiating these children from the intruder. Perhaps requiring all students to carry a **school** I.D. would help solve the case of the mystery person out of **uniform**. This would seem a much less intrusive way of accounting for **school** membership and would also help prepare students for their lives as adults, when a driver's license or other form of identification is nearly always carried. Krysia and Gillian (equal amount of work.) WILKINS, JULIA. "School Uniforms." //Humanist// 59.2 (1999): 19. //MAS Ultra - School Edition//. EBSCO. Web. 30 Sept. 2011.
 * Schools ** are supposed to prepare students for their future roles as adults. Exactly what kind of world are students being prepared to live in--one where no tough decisions ever have to be made and where their hardest choice each day is deciding what to wear?
 * School ** officials should be aware of people wandering in and out of the **school** building and, other than between periods, all students should be in a classroom. It would therefore seem that an intruder might stand out by the mere fact that he or she is roaming around the **school** grounds at a time when all other students are in class or is strolling into **school** halfway through the day. Of course, this probably doesn't allow for the punctual intruder who arrives at **school** the same time as everyone else.



1. School Uniforms are an upfront expense for families who live off of hand-me-downs and used clothing. Programs to recycle used uniforms and funding to provide poor children with no cost or reduced cost uniforms would need to be in place - thus forcing the



2. School uniforms will restrict the outward expression of a child's unique individuality. School's primary function is to educate, but secondarily is a platform for socialization where clothing can play a role.We should not be teaching our children to blend



3. In the rare event of an emergency (such as a natural disaster) identification of students by their parents could be difficult if all children are wearing the same exact things.



=School Uniforms: Pros and Cons=

by Ann Svensen

There is something comforting about schoolchildren dressed in [|pleats and plaid]. Maybe it reminds us of our own childhood, or conjures up thoughts of order and safety. Whatever the reason, one thing's for sure -- school uniforms are getting a lot of wear these days.

From California to Boston, some of the nation's largest school districts now have uniform policies. In New York City alone, more than half a million elementary-school students will be wearing them by next fall.


 * The Case for Uniforms**

No long-term, formal studies have been done on the effectiveness of school uniforms, but many schools have kept their own informal statistics. California's Long Beach Unified School District's records are probably cited most often. This urban district adopted a mandatory uniform policy in 1994. Since then, school crime has dropped by 76 percent, while attendance has reached an all-time high.


 * If You're a Skeptic, Get in Line**

But Long Beach's glowing statistics have been met with skepticism. Some education experts say that no school can prove that uniforms alone cause such dramatic reductions in crime. Other detractors see uniform policies as a violation of students' rights to free expression, and nothing more than a Band-Aid that fails to address the real causes of [|youth violence].


 * Pros and Cons**


 * Dr. Alan Hilfer, senior psychologist in the Children's and Adolescent Unit at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn says, "Uniforms do eliminate competition, pressure, and assaults perpetrated by older kids on younger kids for their sneakers and other possessions. They also allow some kids to focus better, especially in the lower grades." But Dr. Hilfer says there is a downside: "Clothes are a source of expression for children, and as kids get older, they become increasingly resentful of uniforms."**


 * From the Trenches**

Anthony Poet, assistant principal at the Pueblo Del Sol Middle School in Arizona, recently instituted a uniform policy in his school. He's the first to agree that kids don't like uniforms. But he noticed that the same kids who said they hated the policy also said they're glad to have it. One student confirms, "Uniforms make the school safer, but I don't like them."

Since his school began requiring uniforms, Poet has documented a remarkable drop in discipline problems. But until a long-term study is done, he says he can't be sure whether it's the uniforms or the act of instituting the policy that's made the difference. Dr. Hilfer explains: "Discipline problems may be decreasing in schools with uniforms because the schools (and the parents) have begun taking the issue of discipline more seriously."


 * Are Uniforms Right for Your District?**

According to Dr. Hilfer, strict dress codes are not for everybody. "Some schools thrive on permissiveness and individuality, while others have to be more restrictive to contain a restless student body." Before making the uniform decision, he suggests that schools carefully consider their unique populations; what kind of message they want to send; and whether or not they think their kids will go for it. Dr. Hilfer warns, "By instituting a uniform policy, schools are taking away kids' individuality -- schools need to decide if that sacrifice is worth making."

Read more on FamilyEducation: [|http://school.familyeducation.com/educational-philosophy/individuality/38676.html#ixzz1Z51Dd4GH]

Pros

Uniform helps to create a strong sense school ethos and a sense of belonging to a particular community. As such it promotes discipline and helps to drive up academic standards, which is why a uniform is often adopted by schools which are being reopened with a fresh start after being classified as failing.

Uniform helps to create a strong sense school ethos and a sense of belonging to a particular community. As such it promotes discipline and helps to drive up academic standards, which is why a uniform is often adopted by schools which are being reopened with a fresh start after being classified as failing.

Uniform has practical benefits when students are outside the school building. Being readily identified with a particular institution may make students more aware of their behaviour while travelling to and from the school, leading them to act more considerately, e.g. to other passengers on buses or trains. On organised trips away from the school it is much easier for teachers to ensure they haven’t lost anyone and to monitor behaviour, than if students wore their own clothes and blended in with the crowds.

Uniform prepares students for life after education, when most will be expected to dress smartly and appropriately for work, adhering to a corporate dress code.

Uniform makes it easy to check that every student maintains a smart appearance and is dressed appropriately for their classes. In schools where students are allowed to dress as they like, in practice a constant battle has to be fought by staff to ensure that what the students choose to wear is not inappropriate, e.g. because it is too revealing, features T-shirts with offensive slogans, would be dangerous while performing scientific experiments, etc

CONS

Uniform suppresses individualism and treats students en masse rather than encouraging teachers to recognise their different characters and abilities, and students to accept responsibility for aspects of their own lives. Uniform was better suited to an age of rote learning and military-style discipline than to the more exploratory and creative values of modern education – values which are increasingly important to the wider economy. Many schools, indeed many countries, manage to maintain high school standards of discipline, community and academic performance without adopting uniform.

Students always find ways to tease or bully others, regardless of what clothes are worn. Those who wish to be particularly fashionable will want to own the same number of outfits regardless of whether they are allowed to wear them to school or not, changing into them the minute that classes are over. Parents often find some uniform items, e.g. jackets, very expensive compared to the rest of their child’s wardrobe, and complain they can never be worn outside the school environment.

Uniform makes students very identifiable and emphasises the divisions between schools, making it very easy for bullying and fights to develop between students from rival institutions as they travel to and from school.

Uniform makes students very identifiable and emphasises the divisions between schools, making it very easy for bullying and fights to develop between students from rival institutions as they travel to and from school.

Often it is uniform that is inappropriate, being too cold in winter or too hot in summer, largely because it is badly designed and cheaply-produced in small quantities for a captive market. Girls in particular complain at being forced to wear skirts even in the coldest months, when many would generally wear trousers from choice and some, e.g. Muslims, for cultural reasons. Students will always attempt to subvert any dress code, strict or lenient, requiring staff vigilance in any case.

Individuality:

Supressing individuality is the most commonly cited objection to school uniforms. Educators argue that an academic program encouraging students to pursue individual thought is much more important than what they wear. They inhibit creativity and self-expression, forcing students to conform.

Causes Discipline Problems:

Some students reject any rules. Forcing them to wear school uniforms only aggravates their rebelious spirit. They alter their school uniform by tightening, widening, shortening, or lengthening them, and teachers are given the impossible task of policing the students on a daily basis.

Little or No Relationship to Academics:

Opponents insist that their is no credible evidence that school uniforms improve school discipline or promote higher academic acheivement. The principal argument is that some great students are terrible dressers. Dress does not necessarily improve learning.

"Pros and Cons of School Uniforms" by Isaac Grauke, who is manager of sales and marketing for Hall Closet Uniforms and Apparel, **(MS)**
 * Violate a student's right to freedom of expression
 * Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence
 * Make students a target for [|bullies] from other schools
 * Are a financial burden for poor families
 * Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education
 * Are difficult to enforce in public schools (EL)

Another example of a district’s policy failing to produce the results often touted by uniform supporters is the Miami-Dade County, Florida policy. In an effort to obtain the dramatically positive discipline results reported by Long Beach, Miami-Dade County implemented a similar policy in many of their elementary and middle schools beginning in the 1996-97 school year. The results were, at best, disappointing and, at worst, alarming. The elementary schools with mandatory uniforms saw a slight decrease in discipline problems. Unfortunately, the high hopes held by the district for immediate, significant improvement in discipline were not realized. Sabrina Walters, a reporter for the __Miami Herald__ writes, "The drastic decline uniform supporters had envisioned did not occur" (1). Alarmingly, in middle schools, where uniforms were mandatory, fights nearly doubled over a four-year period from 186 in 1996-97 to 284 in 1997-98. The district administrators attempted to explain away this startling fact by pointing out that fights increased at nonuniform schools as well from 152 to 201 over the same period (1). The conclusion of the Miami-Dade Study states(SM)

Proponents claim uniforms improve many areas in the educational arena also uniform supporters counter that the potential benefits greatly outweigh any loss of freedomsSM)

Having all students wear the same uniform helps create a sense that you belong somewhere and maintain a good school either by culture or spirit. And by showing that the expects an even higher standard, expectations are soon raised and students will usually respond with a better, more mature, behavior. When the United States began to use uniforms in public school there were many reports of improved discipline. (EL)

Why not simply remove the gang members from the schools and place them in an alternative learning environment like a boot camp? (EL)

School is also the place where the next actors, writers, artists, politicians, inventors, designers and and musicians are trained. School uniforms send a clear early-life message to students that conformity isimportant and creativity is not, that authority is allowed to abuse it's power and constrain our constitutional right to free speech and expression. Students learn from uniforms that their individuality,political opinions and religious rights are unimportant, as is their education: students are regularly suspended for non compliance to the uniform code even if their school work is excellent. Ifuniform-requiring schools were actually in 'the business of learning' this would not occur.Tara Maginnis, Ph.D., Costume Designer/Associate Professor Chair of the Theatre Department of University of Alaska Fairbanks Website: "The Costumer's Manifesto" at [|http://www.costumes.org] (EL)

During a natural disaster Earthquake, Tornado, etc,... How would a Parent I.D. their child? By the clothes that they were wearing, when they left home. What if a Senior decided to attack a 9th -or- 10th grade student. How would the victim describe the attacker? Let's see, Khaki Pants - Navy Blue Shirt - Brown Shoes. (EL)

>
 * School uniform policies infringe on parents’ and students’ rights to freedom of expression.
 * The cost of uniforms infringe on parents’ and students’ rights to a free public education.
 * Critics argue that different types of clothing feel comfortable to different people. Some children are more comfortable in a specific material or style of clothing. Uniforms reduce one's ability to choose clothing that fits individual comfort needs. Experts believe that children need to feel comfortable in order to maximize learning, and that uniforms can, in this way, deter academic success for some children.

Expert Opinions
Many educators and experts believe that, although in theory uniforms should improve academic, behavioral, and social outcomes, in reality they do not. These experts argue that the studies of schools who initiate uniforms do not report improvement in any of these areas; therefore, if the desired outcomes are not reached, there is no valid reason to standardize student dress.

There are also, of course, experts who maintain that uniforms do have advantages. Every school district decides on this issue separately, usually following much debate surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of requiring students to wear uniforms.

[] Proponents of mandatory school uniforms claim that data and evidence support their assertions that uniforms improve discipline and reduce crime. While the positive reports emerging from some school districts with uniform policies seem to lend credence to this position, upon closer examination, flaws begin to appear. In Long Beach, California, the first district to have a widespread mandatory uniform policy in the public schools, the initial reports concerning drops in crime and discipline were astonishing. Assault dropped by sixty-seven percent, vandalism by eighty-two percent, and robbery by thirty-five percent. Overall crime was reduced by seventy-three percent the first year the policy was in place ("K-8" 1). Unfortunately, these radical improvements were, at times, attributed exclusively to the new, mandatory uniform policy. During a telephone interview in April 1996, Dick Van Der Laan, Long Beach Unified School District spokesman, stated that the only change which had occurred in the district, prior to the improved discipline results, was the implementation of the uniform policy. However, in the study conducted by Drs. David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore of the University of Notre Dame, a closer look at the Long Beach case revealed that several other reforms were put in place at the same time or shortly prior to the implementation of the uniform policy. So, while uniforms were the most visible change, the improvements were more likely attributable to the other programs which included, among other initiatives, a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for the improvement of teaching methods (Brunsma and Rockquemore 16). Concerning the tendency of Long Beach sources to give credit for the improvements exclusively to uniforms, the study states, "It seems curious given these substantive reform efforts, administrators continue to insist that uniforms are the sole factor causing a variety of positive educational outcome" (16). In response to such scrutiny, Van Der Laan now states that while the district believes uniforms were a contributing factor to the improved discipline rates, they were not the only cause (United 4). The University of Notre Dame study also belies the claims that uniforms improve discipline (SM)

Opponents also cite potential civil rights violations(SM)