Speak Out: Do uniforms make our schools better?

American Teacher, Feb 2005 by Brunsma, David L, Brennan, Timothy

NO

Anecdotes crumble under a mountain of evidence

Most of us are aware of the anecdotes that presume school uniforms' effectiveness on a variety of educational outcomes. However, evidence from eight years of empirical research into public school uniforms is clear: Uniform policies are not effective. Over these years of inquiry, the dominant anecdotes of the school uniform debate have indeed been put to the test. The results, although surprising to many, simply cannot be ignored. Uniforms do not make our schools better.

Estimates from my recent book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, show that elementary schools, in particular, have implemented uniforms at an alarming rate-from less than 1 percent in the late 1980s to 15.5 percent by 2000 (even more recent data show close to 23 percent in 2002). The rates for public middle schools and high schools are about half those for elementary schools. Schools with lower-achieving students, more minority students, poorer students and lower parental involvement were the most likely to adopt uniforms. If uniforms were effective in helping these students, such patterns might make sense; however, because uniform policies are not effective, one has to wonder what it is behind the trend.

School uniform policies do not affect academic achievement (in fact, findings point to small negative effects), attendance, behavior/safety, students' self perceptions, or approaches to learning. Uniform policies don't even affect aspects of schooling that are effective supports, such as academic preparedness, peer pro-school attitudes, parental involvement and safety.

Results actually point to several detrimental effects of the movement to require public school students to wear uniforms. For example, uniforms are no longer serving their traditional role as a marker of elite status. Instead, they are being used in racist and classist ways, to mark lower status. On average, the face of the uniformed student in U.S. public schools is one of poverty and minority status; these students attend schools with high enrollments, dismal funding and lack of resources. Also, uniform policies provide a unique glimpse into the growing climate of corporate influence in our public schools. Since Lands' End's uniform division opened in 1997, other clothiers have followed-resulting in an almost $2 billion industry (5 percent of the children's apparel market) with a captive and largely disadvantaged constituency.

These are not the only detrimental effects of school-uniform requirements, but they illustrate that good intentions behind these "reforms" have little to do with constructive results. Ultimately, uniform policies, rooted in fear, bespeak the desire to control, discipline, and structure an ever-complex process of schooling children, which, whether we accept it or not, is not isolated in a social vacuum.

David L. Brunsma, an assistant professor of sociology and black studies at the University of Missouri-Columbia, is the author of The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade.

YES

I've seen them boost school climate

Studies questioning the value of school uniforms are going to be a pretty tough sell in buildings like Central High School, located in the center of the depressed urban core of Kansas City, Mo.

Until a few years ago, Central made the news quite frequently, notorious for gang violence in the neighborhoods around the school and for being named one of Missouri's first academically deficient schools. If you go to Central today, you will find a completely different environment. The gangs and violence are still in the neighborhoods, but you see little evidence inside the school of the grim reality that exists outside the school-and academic progress is being made. One reason for much of the change is due to a uniform dress-code policy adopted by the school, along with a staff and administration determined to support and enforce the policy.

Before the code was instituted, students would trigger each other into confrontations with the gang-affiliated colored clothing they wore. Many females would wear sexually degrading clothing, and the males' behavior fed the degradation. Many families struggled to make sure their children had the latest fashion for school. Other students would acquire the latest fashions by stealing them from their owners at bus stops or on school grounds, causing more tension and resentment. Students roamed the halls in packs looking for trouble. Fights were daily occurrences, and instruction was difficult due to the chaos that permeated the school.

Today the halls are empty and quiet during instructional time. The graffiti that once lined the corridors of the school is gone. Replacing the graffiti is student work, hanging in the classrooms and hallways. Walk into a classroom and you will find students engaged in learning activities. During passing periods, students are civil as they move from one class to another. And when the bell rings, few stragglers are left patrolling the hallways. In short, there is a functioning school where once there was just a school building.