(0.57)
Note . Estimates correspond to means and those in brackets correspond to standard deviations.
During the spring of kindergarten, school administrators were given a survey that included a question about whether students were required to wear uniforms. Although similar questions were asked again in first and second grade, these surveys were: (a) only asked of administrators of students who switched to new schools (and only a handful of children changed between schools with and without uniforms) and (b) no uniform data were available for students who switched schools after second grade, hence our focus on students who remained in the same elementary schools between kindergarten and fifth grade. Accordingly, we used these reports from kindergarten to create a binary variable that indicated whether students attended elementary schools with or without a uniform policy.
In the fall and spring of kindergarten and again in the spring of each subsequent grade, teachers reported on students’ socio-emotional skills. These questions were derived from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990 ). This tool is based a 4-point scale (0 = never to 3 = very often ) that includes four subscales: Interpersonal skills (5 items; α = .86–.87), self-control (4 items; α =.80–.82), internalizing behavior problems (4 items; α = .76–.79), and externalizing behavior problems (5 items; α = .86–89). Teachers also reported on students’ approaches to learning with a measure developed by NCES (6 items; α = .91–.92). Similar to Claessens and colleagues (2009), we collapsed these indicators into three dimensions: Internalizing behavior problems , externalizing behavior problems , and social skills (a combination of approaches to learning and socioemotional skills).
In addition to children’s socio-emotional development, students’ teachers also reported on students’ school absences every year (0 = no absences , 1= 1–4 absences , 2 = 5–7 absences , 3 = 8–10 absences , 4 = 11–19 absences , and 5 = 20 or more absences ). To increase interpretability, we recoded the scale values to equal the midpoint of the response options (e.g., 1–4 absences was recoded as 2.5 absences). Students who were never absent (scale value of 0) and those who were absent for 20 or more days of the school year (scale value of 5) were coded as being absent for 0 and 20 days, respectively. Note that, during kindergarten through third grade, children had one primary teacher across subject areas who reported on children’s school attendance. In fourth and fifth grade, however, students had different teachers for different subject areas. In these grades, both students’ English language arts teacher and their science or math teacher responded to questions of absenteeism. Because the correlations of absenteeism across subject areas were high, we created a composite of fourth, and then, fifth grade absences.
All analyses were estimated within Stata ( StataCorp, 2009 ). These models included robust standard errors to safeguard against violations of normality and missing data were accounted for with 50 imputed datasets using chained equations. All models were also weighted to be nationally representative and error term were clustered at the school level. To minimize the possibility of spurious associations, all models controlled for a large number of child and family covariates. These indicators capture children’s characteristics (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, English language learner status, and an indicator for whether a parent rated the child as having poor health), children’s educational experiences (i.e., enrollment in full-day kindergarten, school type, and the number of hours that the child spent in center-based prekindergarten and before/after school care during the kindergarten year), household characteristics (i.e., household structure, number of siblings, poverty status, parent education, parent employment, number of books in the home, home learning activities), and school-going practices and routines (i.e., whether the child took a school bus to school, how far the child lived from school, in miles, number of breakfasts and dinners that the family regularly had together at home). In addition, all models (except for models predicting absenteeism) adjusted for lagged dependent variables from kindergarten entry. Given the large number of outcomes, we also make a p -value adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini adjustment (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).
With the above analytic framework in mind, we employed several different methodological specifications to determine whether students demonstrated different outcomes based on school uniform policies. Our first model was based within an OLS regression framework. Importantly, the above is after taking into account a student’s own school entry skills and the control measures. Thus, our first set of analyses considered whether, conditional on covariates, students in schools with uniforms demonstrated greater improvements in outcomes between kindergarten and fifth grade as compared with students who attend schools without uniforms. Notwithstanding the rich control measures included in this study, it is important to note that schools with uniform policies may differ in other observed and unobserved ways, which would make it difficult to isolate the outcomes of school uniform policies from the effects of other factors. To limit this possibility, we estimated three additional models.
Our second specification addressed the possibility of variation at the state-level that may influence the associations between school uniform policies and student outcomes. We did so by implementing state-fixed effects for the full sample of children. Consequently, our state-fixed effects models hold constant all state-wide factors that were the same for students in schools with and without school uniform policies in the same state. Although state-fixed effects account for state-to-state variation, there may be variation at a more granular level in the implementation of school uniforms. Therefore, our third specification was based within a county fixed effects framework, which may be particularly important in a study of school uniform policies, as decisions about school uniforms can stem from county factors. Therefore, county fixed effects help to control for county-to-county variation that exists in school uniform policies and student outcomes. As before, both the state- and county-fixed effects models adjusted for lagged dependent variables and the full set of covariates discussed above.
Even though state- and county fixed effects account for observed and unobserved differences at key levels, and thus, increase confidence in the reported associations, there may be concerns about the overlap between schools with and without uniform policies. Accordingly, our fourth and final specification was based within a propensity score matching framework ( Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983 ). Although propensity scores do not change the causal identification strategy, this methodology does consider whether there is overlap in the unmatched sample and the functional form assumptions that are driving our findings. For our matching models, we used the nearest neighbor method (with up to four matches) with a caliper of .05, allowing a sufficient overlap between students in schools with and without school uniforms. Given this specification, we successfully matched approximately 65% of students (the number of matches varied across the 50 imputed datasets). Importantly, before matching, the average standardized mean difference between conditions was approximately 18% of a standard deviation, but after matching, the average standardized mean difference was roughly 3% of a standard deviation (see Table 1 ). Moreover, none of the covariates were significantly different across conditions after matching, suggesting that balance was successfully achieved (descriptives available from authors). Accordingly, regression models were re-estimated within these matched samples and included all covariates when predicting outcomes (doubly robust estimation; Funk et al., 2011 ).
Once the main effects of school uniforms were examined in these various ways, we then examined potential variation in the benefits of school uniforms as a function of child and school characteristics. Specifically, we examined variation in associations as a function of child socioeconomic status and initial skills, and as a function of the type of school children attended. It is important to note that, given the small number of private schools of different types, we collapsed our school type indicator into public versus private for our moderation analyses. To estimate heterogeneity in associations, we estimated a new set of regression models that included interaction terms between the focal indicator for school uniforms and the moderators of interest. Our focal moderation analyses were estimated with the full set of covariates.
We begin with a descriptive presentation of the types of schools that had school uniform policies along with the students who attended those schools. We then present our main effect analyses before we turn to a discussion of heterogeneity in outcomes and close with set of supplemental analyses. With that said, and as can be seen in Table 1 , roughly 28% of students across the U.S. attended schools that required a uniform. When looking across different types of schools, we find that 78% of Catholic schools that students attended had a uniform requirement as compared with only 54% of other religious schools and 43% of other private schools. And, among public school students, only 21% attended schools with a uniform policy. In terms of the student body, we find that schools with uniforms served a larger number of Black (20%) and Hispanic (40%) children and English Language Learners (27%) than schools without school uniforms (8–18%). In contrast, White children were more likely to be served in schools without uniforms (64% vs. 31%), whereas schools with uniform policies served a larger share of children from low-income families (52%) than schools without uniform policies (41%). Other descriptives stratified by schools with and without uniform policies are presented in Table 1 .
Having established the descriptive snapshot of the schools with school uniform policies along with the student body, we next examined whether students demonstrated different outcomes based on school uniform policies. Two overall patterns are evident in Table 3 with regard to the associations between school uniforms and children’s social skills, behavioral problems, and school absences. First, the associations between school uniforms and students’ outcomes were almost entirely null and the effect sizes across outcomes and grade levels were roughly 3% of a standard deviation. In fact, of the 24 associations estimated within our baseline model with an assortment of covariates, only one emerged as statistically significant and none were statistically significant with a Benjamini adjustment, leaving us with little confidence of a statistically-significant link between school uniforms and students’ outcomes. Second, the magnitude of the estimated associations derived from our baseline OLS model did not change substantially when we estimated models with state- and county fixed effects, nor when we implemented propensity scores (see Table 3 ). Taken together, there seems to be no meaningful differences in students’ social-behavioral and attendance outcomes between kindergarten and fifth grade as a function of school uniforms.
Results from models examining the outcomes of school uniforms between kindergarten and fifth grade.
Student outcome | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model specification | Social skills | Internalizing behavior | Externalizing behavior | Absenteeism |
Kindergarten outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.02 (0.03) | 0.04 (0.04) | 0.04 (0.03) | −0.01 (0.05) |
State fixed effects model | −0.02 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | 0.00 (0.04) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | 0.00 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.00 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.05) |
First grade outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.03 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.04) | −0.03 (0.04) |
State fixed effects model | 0.01 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.05) | −0.04 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | 0.01 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | 0.05 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.04) |
Second grade outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.10 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.04) | −0.04 (0.05) |
State fixed effects model | −0.09 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.04) | −0.03 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | −0.05 (0.05) | 0.00 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.04) | −0.03 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | −0.08 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.05) |
Third grade outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.04 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.05) |
State fixed effects model | −0.00 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.00 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | 0.02 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.06) |
Propensity score model | −0.02 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.05) |
Fourth grade outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.03 (0.04) | −0.02 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.05) |
State fixed effects model | −0.03 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.05) | 0.00 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | 0.02 (0.04) | −0.02 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | −0.03 (0.04) | −0.05 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.05) |
Fifth grade outcomes | ||||
Covariate adjusted model | −0.07 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.05) |
State fixed effects model | −0.02 (0.05) | −0.05 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.05) | −0.04 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | 0.03 (0.05) | −0.08 (0.06) | −0.04 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | −0.06 (0.05) | −0.04 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.05) |
Note. Coefficients in bold were statistically significant at p < .05 with a Benjamini false discovery adjustment. All estimates are weighted and account for the complex sampling design. Models include a full set of controls. All continuous predictors and outcomes have been standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 and, thus, coefficients can be interpreted as effect sizes. Estimates in brackets correspond to standard errors.
Having established the average associations between school uniforms and student outcomes, our next set of analyses examined heterogeneity in these associations as a function of children’s school entry skills, socioeconomic status, and the type of school students attended. In the main, there was no consistant evidence of variation in outcomes as a function of school type nor students’ baseline skills. There was, however, some indication that the links between school uniforms and absenteeism varied as a function of socio-economic status. More specifically, the attendance benefits of school uniforms were approximately 20% of a standard deviation larger for low-income students as compared with more affluent students. Accordingly, even though school uniforms had no links to attendance for higher-income students, in first ( p <.01), fourth ( p < .05), and fifth ( p < .05) grade, low-income students who attended schools with uniforms demonstrated fewer absences than those in schools without uniforms. And although not statistically significant, similar patterns emerged in second and third grade (ES = .10–.13)
In addition to the kindergarten through fifth grade outcomes reported as part of our focal analyses, students also reported on their school belonging (14 items, α = .90; e.g., closeness with teachers and classmates), experiences of bullying (4 items, α = .81; e.g., teasing, name calling), and social anxiety (3 items, α = .88; worrying about what others think) in fifth grade, which are aspects of the school experience that have been at the center of school uniform debates (e.g., Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ; Howe, 1996 ; Huss, 2007 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Sanchez et al., 2012 ). Although all students reported on these additional items, these surveys were not administered to students in the earlier grades. But to highlight the other potential outcomes of school uniform mandates, we estimate supplemental models that consider the links between school uniforms and these self-reported outcomes, net of the covariates outlined above. But because these variables were not collected in kindergarten entry, these models did not include lagged controls.
As can be seen in Table 4 , results from our covariate adjusted models revealed that students in schools with uniform policies reported no differences in their social anxiety, and experiences with victimization, but they did report lower levels of school belonging (ES = 16% of a standard deviation, p < .001) as compared with students in schools without school uniforms. These findings largely replicated when accounting for state- and county-fixed effects along with propensity scores (see Table 4 ) and remained statistically significant with a Benjamini adjustment. And, as before, there was no evidence of heterogeneity.
Results from models examining the associations between school uniforms and students’ self-reported outcomes in fifth grade
Student outcome in fifth grade | |||
---|---|---|---|
Model specification | School belonging | Experiences of bullying | Social anxiety |
Covariate adjusted model | − | 0.08 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.04) |
State fixed effects model | − | 0.09 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) |
County fixed effects model | − | 0.09 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.05) |
Propensity score model | − | 0.05 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.04) |
School uniform policies have grown in the thirty years since their introduction in the United States, both in the public and private education sectors ( U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ). This growth has fostered debate among pro- and anti-uniform advocates ( Boutelle, 2008 ; Brown, 1998 ; Brunsma, 2006 ; DeMitchell, 2006 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Portner, 1996 ; Ryan & Ryan, 1998 ; Zernike, 2002 ). To date, however, these debates have been grounded in both limited and dated empirical evidence, especially in the formative elementary school years ( Bodine, 2003 ; Brunsma, 2004 , 2006 ; Draa, 2005 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ; Kohn, 1998 ; Murray, 1997 ; Pate, 1999 ; Yeung, 2009 ).
With that said, Social Learning Theory posits that individuals rely on a combination of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors to learn how to act in a given situation. This process, known as reciprocal determinism, has been raised by policymakers and adminstrators to suggest that school uniform policies have downstream effects on students because it influences the environment of school children and alters the complex reciprocal determinism equation (Grusec, 1994). Accordingly, the present study sought to add to this literature on the going to school in the context of school uniforms in elementary schools by bringing a longitudinal and national perspective to school uniforms and aspects of students’ development that are relatively understudied, but that are known to drive long-term educational and life success ( Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001 ; Heckman et al., 2006 ). In doing so, several key themes emerged.
First, the results of the present investigation illustrate consistent and largely null findings at the aggregate level as a function of school uniform policies. That is, students who attended schools with and without school uniform mandates, on average, demonstrated similar social skills, externalizing and internalizing problems, and school attendance patterns between kindergarten and fifth grade after adjusting for children’s characteristics and their educational experiences, household characteristics, and school-going practices and routines. Effect size were close to zero, suggesting no meaningful differences as a function of school uniform policies. Importantly, this pattern of largely null findings remained consistent even with the inclusion of state and county fixed effects that accounted for geographic variation as well as when propensity score matching was used. But when looking at students’ own self-reports of their engagement and well-being in fifth grade, we found that students in schools with uniforms reported lower levels of school belonging than students in schools that did not require uniforms.
When taken together, these null—and in some cases negative—findings are both similar to prior studies that have documented null or negative associations ( Brunsma & Rockquemore, 1998 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ), but stand in contrast with other studies that show benefits of school uniforms for children’s socio-emotional development ( Huss, 2007 ; Wade & Stafford, 2003 ; Sanchez et al., 2012 ; Tucker, 1999 ). Although we can only speculate why these differences emerge between the current investigation and some of the extant literature, one must consider the fact that many of the prior studies done on school uniforms have been restricted to specific school districts (e.g., Draa, 2005 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Hoffler-Riddick & Lassiter, 1996 ), whereas the current study presents a national perspective. But with regards to the Social Learning Theory perspective, there is no evidence to suggest school uniforms changed the environment of school children, at least with respect to their social behavior.
One might also wonder why there were largely null associations for broader indicators of social behavior (as reported on by teachers) as compared with negative associations for students’ own self-reports. Of most relevance is the fact that these benchmarks were different: Teachers reported on broader indicators of students’ social and behavioral adjustment, whereas students reported on more specific outcomes related to their school experiences. Thus, including indicators from both the teacher and student perspective presents a more well-rounded and balanced portrait of the outcomes of school uniform policies. But with respect to the lower levels of school belonging in schools with uniforms, one possibility worth considering is that students’ fashion choices are likely to be only one potential source of belonging. Accordingly, what these results make clear is that the argument that school uniforms create cohesion among students and give students a sense of identity is not true, at least in this study sample ( Brown, 1998 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Ryan & Ryan, 1998 ; U.S. Department of Education, 1996 ).
The second key theme that emerged from the present investigation was that the magnitude of associations between elementary schools with (versus without) a school uniform mandate and students’ social and behavioral problems did not consistently vary as a function of children’s socio-economic status nor their school entry skills. That is, school uniforms did not address issues of economic and educational equality that have been at the center of much of the pro-uniform debates and the very reason many school officials and school systems require students to wear uniforms ( DeMitchell, 2006 ). Just as importantly, even with the large differences in the rates of school uniform mandates between public and private schools ( National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 ), we documented no differences in the outcomes of school uniform policies and student outcomes across different school sectors. Put another way, the associations between school uniforms and students’ socio-emotional, behavioral, and engagement outcomes were comparable (and in most instances close to zero) in both public and private schools. Taken together, what the results suggest is that the outcomes of school uniforms are far more similar than different for students of different backgrounds and for students enrolled in different types of schools across the United States.
With that said, one of the only consistent patterns that did emerge (and the third and final key theme) was that low-income children demonstrated fewer absences between first and fifth grade in schools with uniforms as compared with low-income children in schools without uniforms. The above is noteworthy given that absenteeism is at its highest point in the early elementary school years ( Ansari & Pianta, 2019 ) and there is long-standing evidence to suggest that low-income children are doubly at risk: They are more likely to be absent from school (Morrissey et al., 2013) and they are more likely to experience reduced learning due to absences as compared with their more advantaged peers ( Gershenson et al., 2017 ). Given the above, there has been longstanding interest in identifying in which contexts school absences are lowest, particularly for groups of vulnerable children (e.g., Rogers & Feller, 2018 ; Robinson et al., 2018 ). Accordingly, what the results of the present study suggest, is that school uniforms may be one context in which low-income students have fewer instances of absences; with that said, the mechanism for reduced absenteeism was not feelings of school belonging.
Despite these contributions to the extant literature, the results of the present investigation should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First and foremost, students were not randomly assigned to attend schools with and without uniforms. Consequently, our findings should be interpreted with caution as there might be unobservable confounds. With that said, a correlation is necessary for a causal effect and what our findings underscore is that there is no correlational support, on average, for school uniform policies; and in a few instances, the associations that did emerge between school uniform policies and student outcomes were in the opposite direction (i.e., negative). Second, although the present study presents a national snapshot of the outcomes of school uniforms between kindergarten and fifth grade, what is missing is an examination of longer-term outcomes in secondary school and beyond. In other words, our study cannot determine the potential associations for student outcomes of interest for middle or high school students. Additional research is needed to better understand the associations between school uniform policies and student outcomes in the older grades and. Third, because administrators in the ECLS-K were not asked about school uniforms on a yearly basis, the present study could not consider within school changes in uniform policies. Likewise, very few students changed between schools with and without uniforms and, consequently, we also could not examine within child change (i.e., child fixed effects models). For the above reasons, we limited or sample to students who remained in the same school between kindergarten and fifth grade to reduce any bias that may stem from school mobility or other unknown confounds. The above is of note because it limits the generalizability of our findings. Finally, our study relied largely on teacher reports of children’s socio-emotional skills because information from other sources was not consistently available across the elementary grades. The above is of note because our benchmarks for children’s socio-emotional development are based on teachers’ perceptions and may be biased. With that said, it is important to keep in mind that: (a) there are few, if any, large-scale and nationally representative studies that have more objective measures of socio-emotional development and (b) as part of our supplemental analyses, we also examined students’ own reports of their ties to their schools.
With these limitations and future directions in mind, the results of the present investigation bring a contemporary and national perspective to the ongoing debates surrounding school uniforms. In the main, despite the argument that school uniforms have the potential to improve students’ social-behavioral and engagement outcomes ( Daugherty, 2002 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Stanley, 1996 ; Zernike, 2002 ), and shifting the process of reciprocal determinism (Grusec, 1994), the findings from the present study suggest otherwise: There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that students in schools with uniform mandates demonstrated stronger social-behavioral and engagement outcomes than students in schools without such mandates, and there was little evidence of heterogeneity. In fact, when examining students’ own reports of their school experiences, those in schools that required uniforms demonstrated higher levels of victimization and lower-levels of school belonging. If replicated with different samples and methods in the future, what these results suggest is that school uniforms may not be the most effective way to improve students’ social, behavioral, and engagement outcomes.
The authors acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03 HD098420-02). Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Uniform use in public schools is rising, but we know little about how they affect students. Using a unique dataset from a large urban school district in the southwest United States, we assess how uniforms affect behavior, achievement and other outcomes. Each school in the district determines adoption independently, providing variation over schools and time. By including student and school fixed-effects we find evidence that uniform adoption improves attendance in secondary grades, while in elementary schools they generate large increases in teacher retention.
We gratefully acknowledge funding and support from the American Education Finance Association New Scholars Award. We also thank Aimee Chin, Steven Craig, Julie Berry Cullen, Chinhui Juhn, Melinda Sandler Morrill, Stuart Rosenthal, two anonymous referees and seminar and conference participants at the Institute for Research on Poverty Summer Research Workshop, University of California - San Diego, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Houston Center for Public Policy, Texas Camp Econometrics, as well as the American Education Finance Association and Southern Economic Association annual meetings. Finally, we thank Mykhailo Sitiuk for excellent research assistance. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
MARC RIS BibTeΧ
Download Citation Data
More from nber.
In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .
by: Marian Wilde | Updated: March 1, 2024
Print article
Schools, parents, and students frequently clash over the issue of regulating what students may and may not wear to school. These controversies often pegged to the culture war of the moment touch on everything from gender and sexuality to politics, race, and religion. In 2021, a group of about 50 students in Georgia protested their middle school’s dress code for being discriminatory against BIPOC girls by wearing t-shirts every Friday emblazoned with the words “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist.” In 2022, a fight between students, staff, and police officers broke out at a Pennsylvania high school when hats and hoodies were banned as part of a revision by the school board to the school’s dress code. And in 2023, two Michigan middle schoolers, via their mother, sued their school district after they were banned from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts.
Are school uniforms the best solution to this contentious debate? If every student is wearing the same outfit, will a host of campus problems be solved? Researchers are divided over how much of an impact — if any — dress policies have on student learning. There are multiple studies with conflicting conclusions, plus books such as 2018’s The Debate About School Uniforms , but the argument wears on, with a list of pros and cons on each side.
In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to adopt a school uniform policy.
President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996 State of the Union speech, “If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”
According to proponents, school uniforms:.
Schools and districts vary widely in how closely they adhere to the concept of uniformity.
Generally, dress codes are more relaxed than uniform policies. Sometimes, however, dress codes are quite strict with requirements that are potentially viewed as biased based on race or gender. In 2020, two Black male students in Texas, cousins with West Indian heritage, were suspended for wearing dreadlocks in supposed violation of the district’s hair and grooming policy, part of the dress code. The elder one, a senior, was told he couldn’t attend prom or graduation until his dreads were trimmed. In 2022, girls on the track team at an Albany, NY high school were sent home for wearing sports bras at practice.
Uniforms are certainly easier for administrators to enforce than dress codes, largely because the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) can be depended upon to protect a student’s “right to express themselves.” The ACLU believes dress codes are often used to, “shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes… punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination… Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights…” To successfully enforce a dress code, insists the ACLU, the school must prove the student’s attire, “is disruptive to school activities.”
The ACLU’s dress code stance is regularly supported by federal courts , like the 2023 lower court ruling in North Carolina that ended a charter school decree that girls couldn’t wear pants to school. ACLU lawyers claimed this violated Title IX because the dress code “discriminated against female students by limiting their ability to fully participate in school activities, such as using the playground.” The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up a case challenging the lower court’s ruling.
Check with your school to see what the dress code is, as they can be fairly specific. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, the dress code prohibits :
School uniforms worldwide can widely range from nondescript to bizarre. (Extreme examples from China, Australia, and the UK on this YouTube video ) Most public school outfits in the USA are quite casual, with a “ common type ” for boys often a polo shirt in a solid color, with pants in khaki, black, or navy blue. A girl’s uniform is often a skirt and a white buttoned-up shirt. Dress shoes are frequently required for both genders.
In the United States, low-income families spend an average of $249 on a child’s school uniform annually, far less than the typical Australian student’s $578. But still, the cost is sometimes viewed as unfair because public education is intended to be free, paid by tax dollars, not “a stress for families on lower incomes.” The ACLU believes that public schools should provide free school uniforms , because the expense is unconstitutional, and it increases wealth inequity.
In 2006, Virginia Draa, professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed the impact of school uniforms at 64 public high schools that had larger percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students than other urban schools. Her conclusion surprised her: “I really went into this thinking uniforms don’t make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do… I was absolutely floored.” Her analysis determined that the schools with uniforms improved their students attendance, and graduation rates rose an average almost 11 percent.
In 2022, Ohio State University and University of Pennsylvania researchers reached a contrary opinion in their report titled “ School Uniforms and Students Behavior: Is There a Link? ” Their view was that, in general, evidence that school uniforms improve social skills in the students was “inconclusive.” The solitary praise they provided to uniform-wearing was noting there was “some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.”
What to believe? Jury is still out.
A student discussion: pros and cons of uniforms
Editor’s note: This video is part of our high school milestones series about communication skills. The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms.
A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school . Only 30 percent believed the uniforms “might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped them focus at school, 34 percent believed their school was safer due to the uniforms and 37 percent said, “I worry less about my appearance” due to the uniform requirement.”
An earlier study, also in Nevada, displayed similar unpopularity with newly instituted uniforms among middle school students. However, when the researchers looked into school discipline and local police records and compared them to the prior year’s data, discipline referrals were down 10 percent, there were 63 percent fewer police log reports, and incidences of graffiti, fights, and gang-related activity were all down.
A new trend is the mounting pressure to establish dress codes for teachers. Apparently, the same casual mindset toward revealing outfits is cropping up in the ranks of our teachers.
The debate over uniforms in public schools encompasses many larger issues than simply what children should wear to school. It touches on issues of school improvement, freedom of expression, and hot-button culture wars. It’s no wonder the debate rages on.
Homes for rent and sale near schools
Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does
5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school
Surprising things about high school
Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.
Please enter a valid email address
Thank you for signing up!
Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Julius Montes
Amra Sabic-El-Rayess
Cynthia Istook
IASET US , simple jain
jingkai xie
Shem Mwalw'a
simple jain
Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics
Final Year Project
Mujeeb O L A N R E W A J U Akinwale
Online Submission
World Bank, mimeo
Mercy Ngatia
Bulgarian Comparative Education Society
Vimbi Mahlangu
European Journal of Education Studies
Anthony Amonjenu
European Journal of Oral Sciences
Elias Ponce
Scottish Educational Review
Rachel Shanks
University of Aberdeen
Robbayani Shoghiro
Dr Venudhar Routiya
Displaying all articles.
Rachel Shanks , University of Aberdeen
Johanna Reidy , University of Otago
Renae Barker , The University of Western Australia
Remi Joseph-Salisbury , University of Manchester
Emily Moorlock , Sheffield Hallam University
Victoria Rawlings , University of Sydney and Debra Hayes , University of Sydney
Amanda Mergler , Queensland University of Technology
Todd A. DeMitchell , University of New Hampshire
Pat Thomson , University of Nottingham
Senior Lecturer, School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology
Senior Lecturer, The University of Western Australia
Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney
Professor Emeritus of Education Law & Labor, University of New Hampshire
Professor of Education and Equity, University of Sydney
Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Sheffield Hallam University
Presidential Fellow in Ethnicity and Inequalities, University of Manchester
Lecturer, Department of Public Health, University of Otago
Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Aberdeen
Professor of Education, University of Nottingham
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions , school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
The first recorded use of standardized dress in education may have been in England in 1222, when the Archbishop of Canterbury mandated that students wear a robe-like outfit called the “ cappa clausa .” The origin of the modern school uniform can be traced to 16th Century England, when the impoverished “charity children” attending the Christ’s Hospital boarding school wore blue cloaks reminiscent of the cassocks worn by clergy, along with yellow stockings. As of Sep. 2014, students at Christ’s Hospital were still wearing the same uniform, and according to the school it is the oldest school uniform still in use. When Christ’s Hospital surveyed its students in 2011, 95% voted to keep the traditional uniforms. Read more history…
Pro 1 School uniforms deter crime and increase student safety. In Long Beach, California, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district’s schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon “look-alikes”) decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%. [ 64 ] One year after Sparks Middle School in Nevada instituted a uniform policy, school police data showed a 63% drop in police log reports, and decreases were also noted in gang activity, student fights, graffiti, property damage, and battery. A peer-reviewed study found that schools with uniform policies had 12% fewer firearm-related incidents and 15% fewer drug-related incidents than schools without uniforms. [ 25 ] [ 69 ] School uniforms also prevent students from concealing weapons under baggy clothing, make it easier to keep track of students on field trips, and make intruders on campus more visible. Frank Quatrone, superintendent in the Lodi school district of New Jersey, states, “When you have students dressed alike, you make them safer. If someone were to come into a building, the intruder could easily be recognized.” [ 6 ] [ 38 ] Further, school uniforms create a level playing field among students, reducing peer pressure and bullying. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. Research by the Schoolwear Association found that 83% of teachers thought “a good school uniform… could prevent bullying based on appearance or economic background.” Arminta Jacobson, Founder and Director of the Center for Parent Education at the University of North Texas, states that uniforms put “all kids on the same playing field in terms of their appearance. I think it probably gives them a sense of belonging and a feeling of being socially accepted.” [ 5 ] [ 91 ] And, school uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia, reducing gang activity and pressure to join on school property. The U.S. Department of Education’s Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can “prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school” in order to “encourage a safe environment.” Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed. Osceola County, Florida School Board member Jay Wheeler reports that the county’s schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler explains that “clothing is integral to gang culture… Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment.” [35] [37] [67] [ 35 ] [ 37 ] [ 67 ] Read More
Pro 2 School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes. The National Association of Secondary School Principals states, “When all students are wearing the same outfit, they are less concerned about how they look and how they fit in with their peers; thus, they can concentrate on their schoolwork.” And a study by the University of Houston found that elementary school girls’ language test scores increased by about three percentile points after uniforms were introduced. [ 1 ] [ 15 ] Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocates school uniforms as a way to help students focus on learning: “Take that [clothing choices] off the table and put the focus on school, not on what you’re wearing.” Chris Hammons, Principal of Woodland Middle School in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, explains that uniforms “provide for less distraction, less drama, and more of a focus on learning.” [ 30 ] [ 70 ] Wearing uniforms also enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit, which can boost interest in education. A study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform “reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group.” Christopher P. Clouet, former Superintendent of the New London Public Schools in Connecticut, stated that “the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride.” Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, points out that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: “There is a sense of belonging.” Further, “teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust… throughout the school” and “students are made to feel ‘important’ and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform,” according to a peer-reviewed study. [ 3 ] [ 20 ] [ 31 ] [ 33 ] Plus, school uniforms can improve attendance and discipline. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms, and behavioral problems lessened in severity. School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality. When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies “eliminate wardrobe battles with kids,” make it “easier to get kids ready in the morning,” and create a “time saving in the morning.” Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credits the district’s uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agrees, stating that “it’s so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn’t match.” A Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio’s eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension. [ 1 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 27 ] [ 32 ] During the first semester of a mandatory uniform program at John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque, NM, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 during the first semester of the year prior to 405, a 74% decrease. Macquarie University (Australia) researchers found that in schools across the world where uniform policies are enforced, students “are more disciplined” and “listen significantly better, there are lower noise levels, and lower teaching waiting times with classes starting on time.” [ 68 ] [ 89 ] Wasted time in classrooms is reduced because uniform policies save valuable class time because they are easier to enforce than a standard dress code. Doris Jo Murphy, former Director of Field Experiences at the University of North Texas College of Education, states, “As an elementary assistant principal in two suburban districts, I can tell you that the dress code took up a great deal of my time in the area of discipline… I wished many times that we had uniforms because the issue of skirts or shorts being too short, and baggy jeans and pants on the boys not being pulled up as they needed to be, would have been a non-issue.” Lyndhurst, NJ school district superintendent Tracey Marinelli had a similar experience before a uniform policy was introduced: “Kids were spending time in the office because they were not fulfilling the dress code… That was time away from class.” [ 5 ] [ 6 ] Read More
Pro 3 Students’ legal right to free expression remains intact with mandatory school uniforms. The 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which concerned the wearing of black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, confirmed that students’ constitutional right to free speech “does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing.” Wearing one’s own choice of shirt or pants is not the “pure speech” protected by the Constitution. [ 18 ] [ 28 ] In Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (3-0, 2001), the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school board’s right to implement a mandatory uniform policy, stating that requiring uniforms for the purpose of increasing test scores and improving discipline “is in no way related to the suppression of student speech. [Students] remain free to wear what they want after school hours. Students may still express their views through other mediums during the school day.” [ 18 ] [ 29 ] Besides, students can still express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories. Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News that “contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery.” Students can inject their personal style into their daily look with hairstyles, nail polish, and colorful accessories such as bags, scarfs, and fun socks. 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms. [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 65 ] Further, students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. Students need to learn a balance between free expression and working within the confines of expectations. [ 4 ] Read More
Con 1 School uniforms do not stop bullying and can actually increase violent attacks. “Overall, there is no evidence in bullying literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms, explains Tony Volk, Associate Professor at Brock University. The oft-quoted improvements to school safety and student behavior in the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District from 1993-1995 may not have resulted from the introduction of school uniforms. The study in which the findings were published cautioned that “it is not clear that these results are entirely attributable to the uniform policy” and suggests that the introduction of new school security measures made at the same time may have been partly responsible. [ 64 ] [ 85 ] Further, a peer-reviewed study found that “school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools.” A Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. And, according to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms. [ 14 ] [ 26 ] [ 72 ] [ 73 ] Discipline problems increase in part because school uniforms emphasize the socio-economic divisions they are supposed to eliminate. Most public schools with uniform policies are in low-income neighborhoods (47% of high-poverty public schools required school uniforms vs. 6% of low poverty schools), emphasizing the class distinctions that uniforms were supposed to eliminate. Even within one school, uniforms cannot conceal the differences between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” David L. Brunsma explains that “more affluent families buy more uniforms per child. The less affluent… they have one… It’s more likely to be tattered, torn and faded. It only takes two months [after a uniform policy is implemented] for socioeconomic differences to show up again.” [ 9 ] [ 23 ] Read More
Con 2 School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results. A study that analyzed a national sample of 10th graders found “no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems (fights, suspensions, etc.), or substance use on campus” and “no effects” on “pro-school attitudes, academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school.” [14][66] Brunsma also found a “negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement,” and later found that uniforms were equally ineffective on elementary students and eighth graders. A peer-reviewed study found “no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations… [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative.” [ 2 ] [ 14 ] The problems arise because focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies detracts from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures. Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, North Carolina, stated that school uniforms “are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools.” [ 12 ] [ 14 ] [ 42 ] That uniform policies are a distraction is most evident when we realize that the push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year. Retailer J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are “a huge, important business for us.” In one year alone, uniform company Lands’ End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at public schools and districts. Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of uniforms were partly funded by Lands’ End, and at least one of those studies is “so wholly flawed as to render itself useless,” according to David L. Brunsma. Reuters reported that retailers were “sensing their opportunity… stepping up competition in the uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up ‘uniform shops’ or temporary boutiques within some stores.” [ 14 ] [ 32 ] [ 43 ] [ 44 ] [ 74 ] The commercialization of school uniforms in public schools also undermines the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they’re out of school and for dress-down days. The Children’s Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over “95% of parents on low incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs,” including uniforms, despite their children attending tuition-free schools. Anderson, Indiana, parents Laura and Scott Bell argued against their children’s school uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children’s uniforms broke the guarantee of a free public education. In York County, Pennsylvania, a local NBC affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn’t afford to purchase the required uniforms. And, all of that is before the uniform policies themselves are examined. Most operate like dress codes and are classist, racist, and sexist. [ 10 ] [ 84 ] [ 94 ] Read More
Con 3 School uniforms restrict students’ freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all individuals have the right to express themselves freely. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” [ 8 ] [ 28 ] In Sweden, a government agency, the School Inspectorate, determined that uniforms were a human rights violation because “dress and appearance should be considered an individual expression, decided by the students themselves.” Clothing choices are “a crucial form of self-expression,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which also states that “allowing students to choose their clothing is an empowering message from the schools that a student is a maturing person who is entitled to the most basic self-determination.” [ 7 ] [ 39 ] Uniforms take away the ability to use clothing as means of expressing support for social causes. Students at Friendly High School in Prince George’s County, MD, were not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 75 students received suspensions for breaking the school’s uniform restrictions. Removing these choices can delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world. Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson. [ 11 ] [ 75 ] [ 76 ] [ 79 ] [ 80 ] When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman says that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: “As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison… So if you have a body that’s a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don’t look their best.” A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that “students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies.” Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning. [ 21 ] [ 24 ] [ 75 ] Further, school uniforms promote conformity over individuality. Chicago, Illinois, junior high school student Kyler Sumter says: “They decide to teach us about people like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony and Booker T. Washington… We learn about how these people expressed themselves and conquered and we can’t even express ourselves in the hallways.” Troy Shuman, a senior in Harford County, Maryland, said the introduction of a mandatory uniform policy to his school would be “teaching conformity and squelching individual thought. Just think of prisons and gangs. The ultimate socializer to crush rebellion is conformity in appearance. If a school system starts at clothes, where does it end?” [ 9 ] [ 60 ] In schools where uniforms are specifically gendered (girls must wear skirts and boys must wear pants), transgender, gender-fluid, and gender-nonconforming students can feel ostracized. Seamus, a 16-year-old transgender boy, stated, “sitting in a blouse and skirt all day made me feel insanely anxious. I wasn’t taken seriously. This is atrocious and damaging to a young person’s mental health; that uniform nearly destroyed me.” Late satirist George Carlin asked, “Don’t these schools do enough damage, making all these children think alike? Now they’re gonna get them to look alike, too?” [ 40 ] [ 86 ] Beyond student preference, parents should be free to choose their children’s clothes without government interference. One of the founders of the Wilson County (Louisiana) Parents Coalition, Richard Dashkovitz, states: “It’s time we let the government know that we are fed up with this. Quit dictating to us what my child should wear… [T]he government is intruding into our private lives, roles as parents and the lives of our children.” According to another parents’ rights group, Asserting Parental Rights — It’s Our Duty, mandatory uniform “policies trample parents’ right to raise children without government interference.” [ 10 ] [ 16 ] Read More
Did You Know? |
---|
1. The first school district in the United States to require all K-8 students to wear uniforms was Long Beach, CA, in Jan. 1994. [ ] [ ] |
2. Americans spend around $1 billion per year on school uniforms. [ ] [ ] |
3. Students at Eton, one of England's most prestigious schools, were required to wear black top hats and tails on and off campus until 1972. [ ] |
4. US schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%. [ ] |
5. A government agency in Sweden declared that mandatory school uniforms were a human rights violation, stating that students should decide their dress and appearance as "a matter of the individual's freedom and integrity." [ ] |
More School Debate Topics |
---|
ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA
Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]
© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved
ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):
[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
🏆 best uniform topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 most interesting uniform topics to write about, 👍 good research topics about uniform.
IvyPanda. (2023, January 24). 66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/uniform-essay-topics/
"66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/uniform-essay-topics/.
IvyPanda . (2023) '66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 January.
IvyPanda . 2023. "66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/uniform-essay-topics/.
1. IvyPanda . "66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/uniform-essay-topics/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "66 Uniform Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/uniform-essay-topics/.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Yeung, Ryan. Educational Policy, 2009, Vol. 23. doi: 10.1177/0895904808330170. Abstract: "One of the most common proposals put forth for reform of the American system of education is to require school uniforms. Proponents argue that uniforms can make schools safer and also improve school attendance and increase student achievement.
Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens
School Uniform: Correlation Between Wearing Uniforms and Academic Performance. The combination of colors for example, may affect the students' comfort as well as the public view and perception of the institution The issue of cost should also be put in to check. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts.
Across the nation, school uniform policies are becoming increasingly popular. Between the years 2000 and 2014, the number of schools that had a school uniform policy increased from 12 percent to 20 percent (Musu-Gillette, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, & Oudekerk, Citation 2017).Continuing research on school uniforms may be particularly important for students in the middle grades as young adolescents are ...
School Uniforms in Practice. One major consideration pro-school uniform groups cite is student safety. Past school uniform policies have been introduced as a way to equalize the school culture/setting to support students and reduce gang attire and activity, increase school safety, and decrease clothing theft (Daugherty, 2002; Kaiser, 1985; Stanley, 1996; Zernike, 2002).
Introduction. Mandatory school uniform policies were first put in place nearly 30 years ago (Brown, 1998), with increased implementation from the 1990s onward (Han, 2010).In the 1995-1996 school year, only 3% of public schools in the U.S. required uniforms, which increased to 20% in 2011-2012 (Mitchell, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013).
Gentile, Elisabetta & Imberman, Scott A., 2012. "Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on student achievement and behavior," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71 (1), pages 1-17. citation courtesy of. In addition to working papers, the NBER disseminates affiliates' latest findings through a range of free periodicals ...
The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms. A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school. Only 30 percent believed the uniforms "might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped ...
Introduction. The topic of school uniforms frequently leads to public debate in the United Kingdom. Recurring themes include the affordability of uniforms for families living in poverty, children's right to choose what they wear, and anxieties about lax compliance with, or enforcement of, dress codes which is thought to correlate with a general erosion of discipline and traditional morality ...
In 1998, The Journal of Educational Research (The JER) published an article by D. Brunsma and K. Rockquemore that claims that uniforms correlate negatively with academic achievement, but data ...
literature on school uniforms by comparing the perceptions held about school uniform use between students who wore school uniforms and those who did not. Recent high school graduates can offer insight into how students perceive the effectiveness of school uniforms at enhancing the educational process. Student dress is a
Brunsma (2006) states that "what is clear from the research is that school uniforms, as a policy and strategy, do not play a role in producing more parental involvement, increased preparedness, positive approaches toward learning, pro-school attitudes, a heightened feeling of school unity and safety, or positive school climates."
School uniforms may trigger sensory overload in kids who are sensitive to fabrics - our research can help. Lizette Diedericks, University of Pretoria and Karin van Niekerk, University of ...
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. This study uses a public health lens to review evidence about the impacts of wearing a ...
Once a form of 'social camouflage', school uniforms have become impractical and unfair. Why it's time for a makeover. Johanna Reidy, University of Otago. Debating whether school uniforms are ...
Key words: academic achievement, academic research, school uniforms Discourse on school uniforms addresses a range of issues surrounding education and the lives of students and families. The most longstanding and widespread theme has been that uniforms reduce effects of social disparity. For example, in 1894, at the opening of Winthrop Normal and
Pro 1 School uniforms deter crime and increase student safety. In Long Beach, California, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or ...
This review lays out the research landscape on school uniform and highlights areas for further research. Background. Despite regular judicial, community, and press scrutiny, there is little consensus on the function of school uniforms, or agreement about evidence of their impact on education and health. ... and is a sensitive topic in ...
This quantitative research delved on knowing the students' perspective on the school's uniform policy in order to provide basis for policy improvement. A total of 355 students of Narra National ...
The Federal Bureau of Investigation provides the reporting agencies with a handbook that outlines how to classify and score offenses to achieve uniformity in crime and crime data definitions. Uniform Commercial Code Overview. The case scenario is covered under section 2 of the UCC, which involves the sale of goods.
Johanna Reidy [email protected]. Received: 22 April 2021 Accepted: 18 May 2021 Published: 16 June 2021. Citation: Reidy J (2021) Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens ...
School uniforms: What does the research tell us?