School Uniforms - not clear that school uniforms will reduce violence

Humanist, March, 1999 by Julia Wilkins

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.

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.