Reform in Audacity: Requiring Uniforms in Public Schools
by
Robert W. Dickens
EN 101 H-1
Dr. Kerr
19 November 2010
Twenty-seven years ago, a now constant dialog about the state of America’s public schools began. The first of many papers, books, and discussions of the flaws in American public schools was A Nation at Risk (Toppo). Completed and presented in 1983, A Nation at Risk was an indictment of the public school system. The report is based in the fact, stated by the Greek writer Diogenes that, “The foundation of every state is in the education of its youth (Asvestas).” His statement guided the production of A Nation at Risk and informed the subsequent debates. Since then, many reforms have been proposed as means to fix the public school system.
One of those reforms is requiring students to wear uniforms. To avoid misunderstandings, exactly what is meant by the various terms used here must be stated. Here, “dress code” is used to refer to a negative policy- one which controls student dress by prohibiting specific clothing. In contrast, “school uniforms”, “school uniform policy”, and “uniform policy” are used interchangeably to mean a positive policy- one that mandates a certain action. However, school uniform policies range in strictness, from ones which require one outfit to be worn every day to others that specify acceptable components which may be combined as the student wishes. It is that latter sense that the term will be used here. An example of that type of policy would be one which required belted blue, black, or khaki slacks, with girls permitted to wear skirts of the same color is they wish, and a solid color, tucked in polo shirt in blue, red, green, brown, or white.[1] Using a policy of that sort, it would not be unusual for a school to require the items to be bought through the school itself, so they control the fit and cut of the items.
Thirteen years after A Nation at Risk, in his State of the Union address, President Clinton became an advocate of school uniforms, calling for their use to correct behavioral problems (Clinton). However, before any discussion of uniforms begins it is necessary to establish the constitutionality of requiring students to conform to a uniform policy. The effect on academic achievement must also be examined, as if uniforms are harmful to that and, they must not be adopted. Once that is settled, the claims of advocates can be examined. The best known example of a large scale school uniform policy is the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) program; it began in 1994 as, essentially, a measure to prevent delinquent behavior on the part of the students (Kennedy). The backers of the policy claim that it caused, at least in part, large reductions in crime (Mancini). This argument leads in quickly to the argument of uniforms as a security measure, as outsiders are much easier to identify when the student body is in uniform. Last is the argument of simplicity. This is the fact that a school uniform policy eliminates the many shades of gray associated with a dress code, while accomplishing the same end. There are clear-cut distinctions, as opposed to inherently subjective applications of often complicated rules (Viadero).
Having examined some of the points and counter points in the school uniform debate, this paper will attempt to present a moderated case for school uniforms. In this case, evidence appears to support a third way as opposed to one extreme. One of the most vocal critics of uniform policies, the sociologist David Brunsma, is a critic only because he believes that educators are not examining empirical data closely enough before acting on this topic (Interview). On the other side, advocates claim that uniforms will solve all that is wrong with the American school system. Between those two points, it is clear that school uniforms do not create achievement or eliminate social ills. However, they are a visible and clear declaration of purpose; providing educators with momentum to change a school or district for the better. Combined with targeted programs, school uniform policies can be a potent tool for improvement in the classroom.
In terms of constitutionality, school uniform policies are challenged fairly often on First Amendment grounds. Those who agree with the position that school uniform mandates are not constitutionally viable often quote the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker vs. Des Moines, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, the case in question was comparably simple- the students wished to wear black armbands in addition to their uniforms, which is a completely reasonable extension to a uniform policy (Tinker). Such objections are easily silenced by allowing students some degree of latitude in terms of adornments to their uniforms. In broader a broader challenge, federal courts have upheld mandatory uniform policies in Arkansas, although the matter has not come before the Supreme Court in that form (Darden). From this, it is fairly clear that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not prohibit the creation of mandatory school uniform policies.
Academic achievement is a common argument in favor of school uniforms. Most of these advocates align with Mark Twain, “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society (Twain).” The study most often cited by advocates of the position that school uniforms are a positive effect on academic achievement is School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research by Ann Bodine of the University of Texas, San Antonio. She claimed that an improper use of statistical techniques resulted in a previous study falsely concluding that uniform policies are neutral if not harmful. The crux of her argument is the claim that the previous researchers improperly focused on Catholic schools with uniform policies, which are overrepresented in those schools with uniforms (Bodine).
Those previous researchers, David L. Brunsma and Kerry Ann Rockquemore, responded to Bodine’s accusations in a second paper, Statistics, Sound Bites, and School Uniforms: A Reply to Bodine. They explain the mistake that Bodine made in her analysis of their previous work. Brunsma and Rockquemore show their work in a different pattern, explaining how the correlation that Bodine claims was not counted properly was actually included. They also explained how their extrapolation was warranted from the dataset they used (Brunsma and Rockquemore). However, their claim remains weak in the technical sense, meaning that it only makes a claim that is small in magnitude. They state the small claim, “Policymakers who are interested in raising academic achievement should not count on school uniforms to deliver an academic miracle.” (Brunsma et al.)
From those two contradictory positions, we can, with our limited knowledge, assume that either Bodine is correct or Brunsma is correct. Examining each possibility in turn shows why academic achievement should not be used to justify school uniforms, but also not to argue against them. If Bodine is correct, then school uniforms are beneficial and should be adopted for that reason alone. If Brunsma is correct, then there is no counter argument. No matter which alternative is chosen, the current research does not invalidate nor vindicate the arguments of those who would adopt mandatory uniform policies.
The previous two examples explain the major obstacles to school uniform policies, and why the opponents’ arguments are not sufficient to make a powerful negative argument about school uniforms. As it has been established that school uniforms are permitted, and are not harmful to achievement, arguments for school uniforms can be reasonably considered. The first of these is a simple security problem for schools: how can outsiders be identified in the school? The second is the argument that students in uniform are better behaved and tend to attend school more. The third is the argument from simplicity- school uniform policies are far easier to enforce than dress codes.
The security problem is partially solved by uniform policies, as a clear uniform policy allows security personnel to tell at a glance whether a person does not belong (Viadero, Uniforms). There are problems with that line of argument; the largest hole is that an intruder could easily get around the problem by dressing similarly to the students (Wilkins). However, strong school uniform policies would give security personnel an additional tool to identify those that don’t belong. The security officer of Stephen Decatur Middle School, in Clinton, Maryland, commented in an Education Week article, “I can scan a whole group of folks and see those people that belong to Decatur.” (Viadero) This argument is a fairly simple one, it distills to the fact that similarly dressed students cause outsiders to stick out.
Another common claim of school uniform advocates is that school uniforms reduce all manner of poor behavior in students. The classic example of backers is the Long Beach school district in California. In the three years following their enactment of a uniform policy, school crimes dropped by 36% (Mancini). This would seem to be an open and shut statement of effect, but Long Beach’s school uniform policy was part of a much wider reform (Brunsma and Rockquemore). They propose a theory of uniform policies as a catalyst for greater change in a school system, stating:
Instituting a uniform policy can be viewed as analogous to cleaning and brightly painting a deteriorating building in that on the one hand it grabs our immediate attention; on the other hand, it is only a coat of paint. That type of change attracts attention to schools and implies the presence of serious problems that necessitate drastic change. (Brunsma et al.)
This spirit is exactly what is needed in America’s public schools- an acknowledgement that the current system is broken, and in sore need of repair. While Brunsma’s research also finds that student behavior does not change with uniform policy, many school teachers and administrators disagree. They claim that students are better behaved, but their statements are only anecdotal (Viadero, Mancini, Schachter).
This contradiction seems irresolvable. The teachers, who deal with the students every day, claim that they are better behaved, and issue fewer citations (Schachter). Brunsma’s claims recites the scientific line, ‘correlation does not equal causation’. They are both correct, the teachers in that the students are better behaved, and Brunsma in that the uniforms may not be the cause. However, the middle ground is likely correct and very much worth taking. Uniforms are a visible declaration of purpose, and act as a method of showing immediate results while other, different reforms work in the background.
The argument for school uniforms based on simplicity is fairly clear. When the rules are simple- some combination of these elements, and nothing else, must be worn, all guesswork is eliminated from a school’s clothing policy. Almost all policies are similar have a recurring line similar to this one from Frederick High School’s dress code: “that could substantially disrupt or materially interfere with school activities are prohibited (Dress).” Consider that line. It does not define what would substantially disrupt school activities. A teacher, is, then, on their own when it comes to defining, enforcing, and defending their choices regarding dress code violations. The policy is so broad and vague as to be meaningless. To quantify such a statement would be hugely difficult, if not impossible. When that approach is seen as impractical, uniform policies are a natural alternative. They allow for schools to prohibit distracting or disruptive dress without the problems explored previously.
Those five points, in their two categories, present an argument for the adoption of school uniform policies. The first two points show how the stumbling blocks of uniform policies are overcome- they are not unconstitutional, nor are they harmful to the academic purpose of schools. Individually, the claims of the advocates are weak, even if defensible. However, when seen together, they acquire more weight, as uniform policies solve or begin to solve many problems for schools and their administrators. Finally, there is Brunsma’s statement about uniforms as a catalyst. If he is correct in his statement, it would be foolish for school reformers to give up such a potentially potent proposition to placate those in opposition. For those reasons, school uniforms, as part of a larger reform project, should be used in the American public school system.
[1] That sample policy allows for 15 choice for boys and 30 choices for girls. Of course, that calculation does not take into account which color combinations someone might actually wear.
Works Cited
Asvestas, Dimitivos. “OPINION: The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.” The Gown. N.p. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.thegown.org.uk/2010/11/02/opinion-the-foundation-of-every-state-is-the-education-of-its-youth/>
Bodine, Ann. “School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research.” The Journal of Educational Research 97.02 (2003): 67-71. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Brunsma, David L.; Rockquemore, Kerry A. “Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendence, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement.” The Journal of Educational Research 92.01 (1998): 53-62. EBSCO. Web 10 Nov. 2010.
Brunsma, David L.; Rockquemore, Kerry A. “Statistics, Sound Bites, and School Uniforms: A Reply to Bodine.” The Journal of Educational Research 97. 02 (2003): 72-77. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Clinton, William. “1996 State of the Union Address.” United States Executive Branch. Washington, D.C. 23 Jan. 1996. Address. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html>
Darden, Edwin C. “What Not to Wear.” American School Board Journal. Jan 2008: 36-37. Print.
“Interview: Clothes-Minded.” Teacher Magazine 16.06 (2005): 14-15 . Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2005/05/01/06interview.h16.html>
Kennedy, Michael. “A Fashion Statement With Real Meaning.” LA Times. 19 Aug 1995. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/uniforms/article_10.cfm>
Mancini, Gail Hinchion. “School Uniforms: Dressing for Success or Conformity?” Education Digest 63.4 (1997) Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1636&site=ehost-live>
Maryland. Frederick High School. “Dress Code.” N.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://fhs.sites.fcps.org/dresscode>
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393_0503_ZO.html>
Toppo, Greg. “'Nation at Risk': The best thing or the worst thing for education?” USA Today. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-04-22-nation-at-risk_N.htm>
“Twain Quotes” twainquotes.com. N.p., n.d. Web, 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.twainquotes.com/Clothes.html>
“Uniforms Rule.” Newsweek. 4 Oct. 1999: 72. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A55891265&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=fred30208&version=1.0>
Viadero, Debra. “Uniform Effects?” Education Week 24.18 (2005). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15768986&site=ehost-live>
Schachter, Ron. “Do Clothes Make the Student?” District Administration. May 2005: 46-49. Print.
Wilkins, Julia. “School Uniforms: The Answer to Violence in American Schools or a Cheap Educational Reform?” The Humanist. March/April 1999: 19-22. Print.
I really like your idea and your points were unique but very persuasive.
ReplyDelete