School uniforms getting solid marks in Cleveland



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.

What the article fails to mention are the other steps to improve student behavior--such as increasing the number of teachers patrolling the hallways during class changes--that were taken in Long Beach around the same time the uniform policy was introduced. In addition, due to the national attention given to school uniforms, parents and guardians became more aware of the need to participate in their children's lives. Students also knew the higher expectations placed on them. 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 counter-arguments 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

In addition to the benefits outlined in the Manual on School Uniforms, there are many other arguments that proponents of school uniforms propose but which, once again, don't stand up to close scrutiny. These include:

Diminishing class distinction.

I know from growing up in England, where until recently school uniforms were mandatory, that children are acutely aware of each other's social and economic status, regardless of uniformity of school attire. School uniforms can do little to disguise socio-economic status. As the choice to wear designer clothing often has more to do with priorities than wealth, and the fact that both the richest and poorest members of society can be seen wearing brands such as Tommy Hilfiger and Nautica, clothes can no longer be an indicator of social class. Accents, grammatical usage, values, leisure pursuits, and general lifestyles are often more revealing indicators.

If students are to be prepared for the outside world, they need to be prepared for a world riddled with inequalities, injustices, and inflexible social divisions. Attempting to equalize everyone by pretending these divisions do not exist doesn't eradicate the problem; it merely disguises it. What a cruel awakening it will be when students leave school and finally discover that everyone was not born equal and that many people stay underprivileged throughout life because of nuances like their place of birth, gender, and skin color.

Decreasing bullying.

Uniforms are believed to take away an easy target for school bullies. However, the problem of bullying has deep roots and will never stop just because children are dressed the same. Bullying has been going on forever in British uniformed schools. And requiring students to wear certain colors to school does not actually mean they are dressed "the same."

Children who wear cheap-looking or unfashionable clothes, who don't regularly change their clothes, and whose clothes are dirty, torn, ill-fitting, or look like hand-me-downs will not escape the bully's eye. These are things that even uniforms cannot disguise. Also, seeing uniformity as the norm could make children less tolerant of diversity, resulting in even more bullying in the long run.

Improving self-esteem.

It is difficult to understand how students can develop positive self-esteem when they cannot express themselves as individuals and are forced to dress like everyone else around them. The teenage years are marked by the need to express uniqueness and individuality, and uniforms serve only to restrict the urge to experiment at a time when personal identity is very important.

Adolescents place a great emphasis on looks and popularity and are particularly susceptible to fluctuations in self-image and self-consciousness. Denied the opportunity for the most basic form of self-expression--being able to choose how to dress--they are likely to seek other ways of asserting personal identity through appearance, such as through unconventional hairstyles, body piercings, and tattoos.

Increasing sense of belonging.

It is believed that school uniforms enhance students' school spirit and sense of belonging. Unfortunately, this sense of "belonging" may result in an "us and them" mentality that regards students of all other schools as rivals. The same is the case with team mentality that regards everyone who supports a different sports team as an opponent. Loyalty to one's school therefore can expand into hostility toward students of other schools.

In uniforms, children become easily identified as members of a particular school. Seen as rivals by others by virtue of not going to the "best" school (as this is what the "sense of belonging" naturally translates into), this could increase the amount of fighting between students from different schools.

"Beating up" students from other schools when walking home is common practice in certain areas of the United States, making walking home alone a rather dangerous event. Songs and jokes about other schools are also commonplace, particularly in elementary school. These jokes are used as personal insults at individuals attending other schools and often prevent friendships from forming between children from different schools living in the same neighborhood.

In addition to these concerns, there are some other issues that need to be considered. First, if public schools follow the lead of parochial schools, girls will be required to wear skirts instead of pants. This would mean a regression to traditions of six decades ago and will result in the forced diminutizing of female students. This is likely to be an ulterior aim--the belief being that girls are less likely to get involved in gang activity if conforming to stereotypical gender expectations. However, nothing could be more of an infringement on the rights of female students than forcing them to wear restrictive, impractical, "feminine-looking" clothing in an attempt to force them into their traditional gender roles.

Also, school uniform policies infringe upon all students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. For a public-school uniform policy to be legal, it has to have an opt-out provision. If an opt-out is not offered, the school can do little to enforce the uniform code, as it is legally required to provide the child with an education.

Every child has the right to a free, public-school education, and that right cannot be conditioned upon compliance with a uniform policy. That precedent was set in 1969 in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, in which the Tinker children sued after being sent home from school for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The U.S. Supreme Court came to the aid of the children, holding: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Unless they are expressing themselves in a way that threatens to disrupt the school environment, students have a legal right to choose how to dress.

The purpose of education should be to teach students the skills they need to live as free-thinking citizens of a democratic society. This involves learning decision-making and the ability to make educated and informed choices. Educated students who are prepared for this world will not be sucked into advertising campaigns aimed at them, will have the ability to follow rules based on internal moral values, and will have the decision-making skills necessary to choose what to wear each day.

A more effective way to prevent violence over clothing than banning the wearing of valued items would be to teach students to question the desirability of possessions such as expensive sneakers. This can be achieved by teaching students about the manipulative techniques of companies' marketing campaigns, the inflated prices of merchandise, and the use of sweatshop labor to produce the items. Other successful methods to reduce crime in schools include violence-prevention courses, police coordination with schools, and student-initiated crime reporting. It is our responsibility as educators to help students acquire the necessary skills to make educated and informed choices in life.

Could the way to solve all the mindless violence over clothing really be to force children to wear a school uniform? This is a simplistic solution that fails to address issues at the heart of the matter. Mandated uniforms are clearly a band-aid solution to a much larger problem that has its roots in the wider society and the environments in which young people are growing up. Uniforms are but a cheap educational reform that will do nothing in the long run to change the lives of students.

Julia Wilkins has a master's degree in social policy from the University of Bristol in England. She is a special education teacher in Buffalo, New York, and has published activity books in math and physical education for elementary school teachers.

Source Citation:

WILKINS, JULIA. "School Uniforms.(not clear that school uniforms will reduce violence)."  The Humanist. 59. 2 (March 1999): 19(1). Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Von Steuben. 1 Oct. 2008 .

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download