101-



Annotated Bibliography

A Modest List of Debating Points about Mandatory Public School Uniforms. (2001, April

15, 2007). Retrieved April 13, 2007 from debates.html.

I used this website for the information that it is possible to wear any clothing immodestly. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed uniforms would stop girls from being raped, sexually harassed, or even murdered, because uniforms will stop them from wearing skimpy clothes. Although I pointed out it was a sexist argument, because the affirmative claimed a female was at fault for being raped, etc. because she flaunted herself, I still felt it was important to show you can wear a uniform immodestly too. We can trust this website because it’s bias is to discuss the arguments surrounding the school uniform debate, education is a bias I can defend. Although it is from 2001, it is timely because the debate since then, is still the same.

Brunsma, D. (2006). School Uniform Policies in Public Schools. Principal, 85(3), 50 –53.

The information I used from this article is uniforms do not affect behavior. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed uniforms will stop students from transporting weapons and drugs into schools. We can trust this article because it’s bias is to educate. Additionally, Brunsma, the author, is one of the most active and cited researchers involved in the debate of school uniforms. This article is from 2006, it is timely.

Brunsma, D., & Rockquemore, K. (2003). Statistics, Sound Bites, and School Uniforms:

A Reply to Bodine. Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), 72-77. Retrieved Thursday, April 12, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

The information I used from this article, is the LBUSD study lacked methodological rigor and injected misleading statistical interpretations into the discourse. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed based on a study conducted by LBUSD, uniforms caused positive changes in LBUSD student’s behavior. We can trust this article because the article is a defense of the author’s research and interpretations in respect to the school uniform debate. It is a bias I can defend because the author’s are defending their claims that school uniforms do not cause positive changes when students are made to wear them. This article is timely because, as my next source explanation explains, it defends interpretations that were under attack, in respect to a long-term study from1988-1994, during the time uniform changes first took affect in LBUSD.

Brunsma, D., & Rockquemore, K. (1998). Effects of student uniforms on attendance,

behavior problems, substance use, and academic... Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 53. Retrieved Thursday, April 12, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

I used this article to cite social science research that found uniforms do not cause behavior changes, substance use changes, student achievement changes, or attendance changes. This was of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed uniforms cause positive changes. We can trust this source because the authors are sociology experts, and their research is an interpretation of a 600 page report on the National Educational Longitudinal Report that studied uniforms, using control variables for things such as race and socio-economics. This research from 1988 is timely because the long term study interpreted was from 1988-1994, during the time uniform changes in LBUSD first took affect, the research studied the most critical time of uniform changes, when the biggest changes would have occurred, before they became the norm for students.

Additionally, I used this article to explain additional reform efforts were implemented along with the mandatory uniform policy at LBUSD, including a reassessment of content standards and a $1 million grant to develop teaching strategies. This is of utility to my argument because it shows we can not trust that LBUSD uniform policy was the major contributor for declines in truancy and violence, because other changes happened simultaneously.

Connor, D. (2002). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. (Cover story). Brown

University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 18(9), 1. Retrieved Sunday, April 15, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

I used this article to state aggression and antisocial behaviors in the youth are complex, heterogeneous conditions with multiple diverse psychosocial and neurobiological causes extending across the individual, family, and community environments. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative evidence why kids are aggressive, they only claimed uniforms would stop aggressive behavior in kids. Once I defined the causes of aggression in this way, the affirmative had the responsibility to prove uniforms will stop these types of behaviors. We can trust this article because it’s bias is to educate, it was written by a doctor, for a respected university. The information I used from this article is not affected by time.

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice: Unprecedented Drop in California Youth

Crime and Incarceration Rates: Lowest Level of Imprisoned Youth in Modern State History. (2006, June 28). Retrieved April 13, 2007 from

The information I used from this article is of 2006, commitments to California’s youth corrections fell by 75%, the fastest decline in six decades. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed crime was rising. We can trust this source because the center on juvenile and criminal justice’s job is to keep accurate statistical information in regards to juvenile crime. It is timely, and I bias I can defend, it shows crime is at an all time low, not out of control, as the affirmative argued.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics: Indicators of

School Crime and Safety. (2006). Retrieved April 13, 2007 from .

The information I used from this website is that in 2005, 54.9 million students were enrolled in pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Of those, 1.4 million were involved in a crime, 583,000 being violent. These numbers mean, .018% of students were involved in crime, and .01% of them were violent crimes. This is of utility to my argument because it illustrates the problem of crime in schools is not significant enough to warrant change, as the affirmative argued. These percentages are so small, if a scientist’s research resulted these numbers, they would, hopefully have a sense of humor, and laugh as they threw these statistics away, knowing numbers this microscopic do not prove significance. We can trust these statistics because the US Department of Education applies rigorous research methods. These statistics for 2006 are timely and the most recently available for our debate in 2007.

I also used this source to state 2 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places in school in 2005 because of fear of crime. This is of utility to my argument because the affirmative claimed 25% of students were scared to go to school, in 1998. These statistics from 2006 are timely and the most recently available for our debate in 2007.

Additionally, I used this source to state between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students reporting victimization declined from 5 to 4 percent. This was of utility in my argument during the first speech because it illustrates student victimization is not 12.5%, as the affirmative claimed using statistics from 1998, it is 4 percent. I used this source in my second speech to illustrate victimization is on the decline; the affirmative stated in 2004 750,000 students went to the ER, in 2005, 583,000 students report being a victim of violent crime at school, which is a decline. These statistics are timely, additionally they illustrate the affirmative’s statistics from 2004 are not.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Stop Bullying Now. (2007, March 30.)

Retrieved April 13, 2007 from stopbullyingnow..

I used this website to illustrate kids bully other kids because they are impulsive, easily frustrated, lack empathy, and view violence in a positive way. This is of utility to my argument because I was illustrating kids bully other kids for these reasons, not because of name brand clothes, as the affirmative claimed. Once I defined these are the reasons kids bully other kids, the affirmative had the responsibility to prove uniforms will solve these problems. We can trust this information because the government’s Department of Health and Human Services provided it. The Stop Bullying! Page did not have a date for when it was last updated, but the US Department of Health and Human Services site did, that is the date I used in my citation.

Wilson, A. (1998). Public school dress codes: The constitutional debate. Brigham Young

University Education & Law Journal, Retrieved Sunday, April 15, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

The information I used from this source is that LBUSD increased the number of teachers patrolling the hallways during class changes at the same time the uniform policy became mandatory. This is of utility to my argument because it shows we can not trust LBUSD uniform policy was the main contribution to changes that happened in LBUSD, as the affirmative claimed; we do not know what the main contribution was. Maybe it was teachers patrolling the hallways. We can trust this source because it is from a scholarly reviewed education and law journal. This article is a bias I can defend, it is to educate. It is timely because the information I used is not affected by time.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download