school policy research paper

School policies and the success of advantaged and disadvantaged students

Download the report

Subscribe to the Center for Economic Security and Opportunity Newsletter

David figlio and david figlio dean - the school of education and social policy at northwestern university krzysztof karbownik kk krzysztof karbownik postdoctoral researcher - institute for policy research, northwestern university.

August 2, 2018

18 min read

executive summary

We make use of matched birth-school administrative data from Florida, coupled with an extensive survey of instructional policies and practices, to observe which policies and practices are associated with improved test performance for relatively advantaged students in a school, for relatively disadvantaged students in a school, for both, and for neither.

We consider twelve policies and practices from this survey that are neither highly common nor challenging to implement, and we find that in seven of twelve cases, the policy/practice is associated with much different fifth grade test score outcomes for advantaged versus disadvantaged students. For example, sponsoring Saturday school is associated with significant increases in test performance for disadvantaged students but reductions in test performance for advantaged students. While these are not causal estimates of relationships – to do so would require either an experiment or a natural experiment – they do make clear that school policies and practices that are associated with better outcomes for some students might be associated with worse outcomes for others.

Our bottom line is this: Policies and practices that might be successful overall could actually help one group of students while harming another, so care should be taken when evaluating them to see whether they are benefiting all, some, or no students – and whom they are benefiting. Schools might do a better job ensuring success for all students the more they investigate how the practices are affecting different groups of students. We hope that this analysis will shed some light on possible policies and practices to be evaluated more rigorously, and to encourage a careful analysis of heterogeneous effects of policies and practices.

Introduction

The socio-economic differences in student performance are well-known and extensively documented. 1 As just one example: Nationally, 13-year-old students whose parents are college graduates scored over four-fifths of a standard deviation higher on the mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2012 than did those whose parents did not finish high school. 2 In science in 2015 the same gap was also over four-fifths of a standard deviation. 3 Likewise, the test score gap between children from rich and poor families in the United States has widened over time, and is now over a full standard deviation. 4

Important recent work by Reardon and his collaborators shows that not only test scores 5 but also racial test score gaps 6 vary dramatically across American school districts. In this latter paper, Reardon and coauthors report that while racial/ethnic test score gaps average around 0.6 standard deviations across all school districts, in some districts the gaps are almost nonexistent while in others they exceed 1.2 standard deviations. There are many potential explanations for this cross-district variation in achievement gaps, including racial differences in socio-economic status, differences in racial/ethnic segregation, differences in school and neighborhood quality, and the like, and the evidence to date about the leading causes of this variation is descriptive, rather than causal. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in some places, racial/ethnic and socio-economic differences are extraordinarily larger than in other places. These differences also correlate with important long-run economic outcomes as documented in a new work by Chetty and co-authors, where they find suggestive evidence that “quality of schools – as judged by outputs rather than inputs – plays a role in upward mobility.” 7

Moreover, there exists tremendous variation in school quality within school districts. 8 And there are some schools where relatively advantaged students do well but relatively disadvantaged students do poorly, other schools where the reverse is true, other schools where both relatively advantaged and relatively disadvantaged students do well, and still other schools where both relatively advantaged and relatively disadvantaged students do poorly. 9 Furthermore, there exist considerable differences in these patterns across schools within the same school district. 10

The next logical question is to ask whether there are any school-level policies or practices that predict whether schools do particularly well with relatively advantaged students, with relatively disadvantaged students, with both, or with neither. To study this question persuasively, there should either be an experiment that randomly assigns students to schools that have different sets of policies or practices, or a “natural experiment” caused by policy changes or a policy roll-out that affects some schools or areas differently from others. But a good first step is to correlate these performance measures with a broad and varied list of school policies and practices to observe the emerging patterns. Such an analysis would then help researchers and policymakers to shine a light on individual policies and practices using more rigorous empirical methods. This is the purpose of the present report.

In this report, we make use of a remarkable survey carried out during the 1999-2000, 2001-02, and 2003-04 school years by Figlio, Goldhaber, Hannaway, and Rouse. Figlio and colleagues attempted to survey the complete population of school leaders in Florida regarding a wide range of school policies and practices, and achieved response rates between 70 and 80 percent in every survey round. 11 We match these survey responses to a student-level dataset that combines children’s birth certificate data with their educational records. The Florida Departments of Education and Health merged the birth and education records for the purposes of this research agenda.

Being able to match children’s school records to their birth certificates provides new opportunities for a much more detailed measure of socio-economic advantage or disadvantage than can be typically observed from school records. We combine information on parental education levels, maternal age, marital status, and poverty status at the time of birth 12 to construct a continuous index of socio-economic status at the time of birth. 13 Using this information, we calculate school-level performance of relatively advantaged and relatively disadvantaged students. 14 Because the children in the matched dataset were born between 1994 and 2001, the school leader survey response years correspond to when the students in the matched administrative data were either in elementary school or just before they entered elementary school.

Using this matched dataset, we investigate the degree to which twelve popular school-level policies and practices correlate with the relative success of disadvantaged students, advantaged students, both, or neither.

School-level policies and practices considered

The surveys carried out by Figlio, Goldhaber, Hannaway, and Rouse include dozens of questions. For this initial investigation of the data, we limit ourselves to the twelve questions that have considerable variation in the frequency with which the policy is carried out. Many policies and practices are implemented by almost all schools and many policies and practices are implemented by very few schools, and we want to look at policies and practices that are more in the middle of the spectrum. 15 Because our outcome of interest is the fifth-grade statewide test score, we limit the analysis to elementary schools.

While the surveys inquired about many policies and practices that were highly-frequently cited or rarely cited, the policies and practices identified in the surveys that are in the middle of the frequency spectrum are:

(1) Does this school use monetary rewards (including one-time cash bonus) to reward teacher performance, independent of incentives used by the district?

(2) Does this school use block scheduling?

(3) Does this school make use of subject matter specialist teachers?

(4) Does this school use looping (to keep students with teachers and classmates across years)?

(5) Does this school use multi-age classrooms?

(6) Does this school assign an aide to low-performing teachers to improve their performance?

(7) Does this school provide sponsored summer school?

(8) Does this school extend the school year beyond what the state and district require?

(9) Does this school sponsor Saturday school?

(10) Does this school require summer school for grade advancement of low-performing students?

(11) Does this school require before-school or after-school tutoring of low-performing students?

In addition, we constructed a twelfth school policy/practice regarding the required number of days of teacher professional development; to be parallel with these dichotomous outcomes, we measure whether the school is above or below the median in the number of required professional development days for teachers.

The survey intentionally did not define these terms, but rather left it to respondents to answer the questions as they saw fit.

Analysis and results

In this analysis, we look separately at students who are relatively advantaged (top quartile of the socio-economic distribution) and relatively disadvantaged (bottom quartile of the socio-economic distribution), and focus on schools that are reasonably heterogeneous – those with at least ten observed students in each socio-economic quartile. (All told, 1,223 public elementary schools have at least ten observed students in each socio-economic quartile across observed school years.) We first regress fifth grade statewide test scores on a series of background variables (race, ethnicity, country of birth, gender, gestational age, birth weight, and month and year of birth) and then compare these “residualized” test scores across schools that either offer the policy/practice or that do not, and do so separately for relatively disadvantaged and relatively advantaged students. Because test scores differ greatly across race-ethnicity-nativity groups, and these characteristics are permanent for each child, we prefer to “net out” any variation in achievement that does not come from either socio-economic status or school policies. While we recognize that racial and ethnic composition are themselves also indicators of socio-economic status and affluence, we want to try to get at the portion of socio-economic status that is not associated with race and ethnicity. We estimate and present a multivariable analysis, in which we consider a “horse race” between the twelve policies and practices; sometimes schools carry out two or more of these policies and practices, and we want to see which seem to be more strongly associated with test scores for different groups of students. 16

The figures below present the fifth grade test score differences between schools that offer the policy/practice and those that do not, estimated separately for relatively disadvantaged and relatively advantaged students. The blue bars (to the left of each pair of bars) present the estimated relationships for the least advantaged students, and the red bars (to the right of each pair of bars) present the estimated relationships for the most advantaged students. We arrange the policies and practices based on the average socio-economic status of the schools that adopt these practices; schools educating the least advantaged students are the most likely to sponsor Saturday school, while schools educating the most advantaged students are the most likely to offer monetary incentives for teachers. To make the graphs more readable, we split the policies and practices into two groups of six, with the policies and practices that tend to be adopted by relatively disadvantaged schools presented in the first graph and the policies and practices that tend to be adopted by relatively advantaged schools presented in the second graph. Test scores are standardized and residualized as noted above, and we present estimated differences in terms of percentage of a standard deviation.

To help to interpret these figures, consider the practice at the very left of the top graph – whether a school sponsors Saturday school, the practice most disproportionately associated with schools educating disadvantaged students. We find that the most disadvantaged students have 5.3 percent of a standard deviation higher test scores in schools that sponsor Saturday school than in schools that do not. But the difference in test scores for the most advantaged students goes the other way: The most advantaged students have 1.7 percent of a standard deviation lower test scores in schools that sponsor Saturday school than in schools that do not. As a consequence, the difference between the estimated relationships for disadvantaged versus advantaged students are 7 percent of a standard deviation.

This comparison makes clear that it might be challenging for a school to achieve high performance for all students – at least with the same set of policies and practices. While we are not estimating a causal relationship, and there are many unobserved reasons why a school might choose to sponsor Saturday school, it’s still the case that we observe that disadvantaged students’ test scores are higher in schools that sponsor Saturday school, while advantaged students’ test scores are lower in these same schools.

Indeed, consider the following scatterplot, in which each point represents a different Florida elementary school. We plot test scores for the most advantaged students on the horizontal axis and those for the least advantaged students on the vertical axis. The blue dots are schools that do not sponsor Saturday school, and the orange dots are schools that do. In general, schools that do better with one group of students do better with the other group of students. But for any given level of advantaged-student test scores, relatively disadvantaged students do better in schools that sponsor Saturday school than in those that do not.

Looking more broadly, we observe that among the range of policies and practices that we consider, the policies and practices are associated with statistically significantly different associations for advantaged and disadvantaged students in seven of the twelve cases. In five of these seven instances, the estimated associations go in opposite directions for advantaged and disadvantaged students, whereas for the sixth and seventh (subject matter specialist teachers and multi-age classrooms) the estimated associations are negative for both advantaged and disadvantaged students, but much larger (and statistically distinct from zero) for advantaged students in the case of subject-matter specialist teachers, and for disadvantaged students in the case of multi-age classrooms. There are other cases where there are differences: Required summer school for low-performers is associated with worse test scores for advantaged students, but not for disadvantaged students; aides for low-performing teachers and more professional development are associated with worse test scores for advantaged students but better for disadvantaged students; and sponsored summer school seems to have a positive relationship for advantaged students and a negative one for disadvantaged students. 17

Occasionally, we do see a practice that is associated with improved (or reduced) test scores for both advantaged and disadvantaged students: In addition to the cases of multi-age classrooms and subject-matter specialist teachers in elementary school, the estimated relationships point in the same direction (but are not statistically distinct from zero) in the case of extended school year (negative association for both). Again, while these are not causal estimates of relationships – to do so would require either an experiment or a natural experiment, as mentioned above – they do make clear that school policies and practices that are associated with better outcomes for some students might be associated with worse outcomes for others.

The authors did not receive any financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. They are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article.

qualtrics survey

School improvement & redesign.

Featured Project: Message in a Bottle

Which implementation strategies and practices drive performance on the new tests tied to Common Core State Standards?

Featured News: Frustrated with the Pace of Progress?

Thomas Kane explains how the education sector can invest in better evidence.

The evaluation of new models, policies, and programs has the potential to inform and improve the future of education. Since there is so much potential for impact, CEPR is engaging the best minds in social science to learn what’s working and what’s not in our schools. We are evaluating new instructional delivery models, new ways of using data and evaluating school outcomes, and the impact of introducing new standards on teachers and students.

Other Focus Areas

Postsecondary Access & Success
Teacher Effectiveness
Related Projects
Presentations

Achievement Network i3 Program Evaluation

Funded by the Federal Government through i3, this project is a rigorous evaluation of The Achievement Network’s (ANet) impact on school outcomes.... Read more about Achievement Network i3 Program Evaluation

Boston Charter Research Collaborative

The multi-year partnership between six Boston-area charter schools or charter management organizations (CMOs), CEPR, MIT, and TransformEd, focuses on research and practice to support students’ cognitive and social-emotional development.... Read more about Boston Charter Research Collaborative

Boston Teacher Residency Evaluation

Sponsored by the Boston Plan for Excellence, this work examined characteristics of Boston Teacher Residents relative to other Boston novices, relative retention rates, and, most importantly, student outcomes.... Read more about Boston Teacher Residency Evaluation

DreamBox Learning Achievement Growth

An impact study on the use of DreamBox Learning software on student achievement in the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) and the Rocketship Education charter school network.

Evaluating Newark's Education Reforms

Aided by $200 million in private philanthropy, city and state leaders launched a major school reform effort in Newark, New Jersey. In this study, researchers evaluate the impacts of Newark’s education reform efforts, starting in the 2011–2012 school year.

National Center for Research in Policy and Practice

Through a partnership with the University of Colorado Boulder and Northwestern University, this project studies how educational leaders—including school district supervisors and principals—use research when making decisions and what can be done to make research findings more useful and relevant for those leaders.... Read more about National Center for Research in Policy and Practice

Partnering in Education Research (PIER) Fellowship

The Partnering in Education Research (PIER) Fellowship is designed to train Harvard University doctoral students on how to conduct quantitative education research in partnership with school districts and state education agencies.... Read more about Partnering in Education Research (PIER) Fellowship

Proving Ground

Proving Ground works with school districts to help them identify and test solutions to specific challenges, such as chronic absenteeism, that are obstacles to student achievement.... Read more about Proving Ground

Social-Emotional Measures for California Office to Reform Education

A collaborative effort with Transforming Education to develop measures of social-emotional learning for school accountability and improvement within the California Office to Reform Education (CORE).

Strategic Data Project

Since 2008, the Strategic Data Project (SDP) has partnered with school districts, charter school networks, state education agencies, and nonprofit organizations to bring high-quality research methods and data analysis to bear on strategic management and policy decisions.... Read more about Strategic Data Project

Derek Briggs

... Read more about Derek Briggs

Cynthia Coburn

... Read more about Cynthia Coburn

Michael Goldstein

... Read more about Michael Goldstein

Joshua S Goodman

... Read more about Joshua S Goodman

... Read more about Andrew Ho

Thomas J. Kane

... Read more about Thomas J. Kane

Bill Penuel

... Read more about Bill Penuel

Marguerite Roza

James Spillane

... Read more about James Spillane

Martin West

... Read more about Martin West

In Massachusetts, the charter school debate has centered on four concerns:

that the achievement of the high-scoring charter schools is due to selective admission and retention policies and not the education that the charter schools provide,
that charter schools are underserving English language learners and special education students,
that charter schools are disciplining students at higher rates in order to drive troublesome students back to traditional schools, and
that charter schools are undermining traditional public schools financially.

This report summarizes the evidence pertaining to these four concerns.

(2016). Findings from a National Study on Research Use Among School and District Leaders (Technical Report No. 1) . National Center for Research in Policy and Practice. Read the report (NCRPP Website)

Achievement Network (ANet) was founded in 2005 as a school-level intervention to support the use of academic content standards and assessments to improve teaching and learning. Initially developed within the Boston charter school sector, it has expanded to serve over 500 schools in nine geographic networks across the United States. The program is based on the belief that if teachers are provided with timely data on student performance from interim assessments tied to state standards, if school leaders provide support and create structures that help them use that data to identify student weaknesses, and if teachers have knowledge of how to improve the performance of students who are falling behind, then they will become more effective at identifying and addressing gaps in student learning. This will, in turn, improve student performance, particularly for high-need students.

In 2010, ANet received a development grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation (i3) Program. The grant funded both the expansion of the program to serve up to 60 additional schools in five school districts, as well as an external evaluation of the expansion. The Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) at Harvard University partnered with ANet to design a matched-pair, school-randomized evaluation of their program’s impact on educator practice and student achievement in schools participating in its i3-funded expansion.

This case illustrates how the work of leaders and analysts in the Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) and the agency’s partnership with the Strategic Data Project (SDP), a program of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, created momentum for statewide policy change. By exploring Delaware leaders’ use of data and analytics to challenge assumptions and inform the development of better policies and practices, the case illustrates the importance of leadership, analytic and technical competency, and strategic partnerships when leading education reform. The case specifically highlights the power of human capital analytics to diagnose the current status of Delaware’s educator pipeline, from preparation through development and retention, and how effectively communicating with these analyses built coalitions of support and drove a culture of data use at both the state and district level. Download the case study [SDP website]

The SDP Strategic Use of Data Rubric is a resource to provide direction and support to education organizations in their efforts to transform their use of data. The rubric establishes a common language and framework to more clearly illustrate what effective data use at the system level can look like. Learn more and download the rubric [SDP website]

The authors used self-report surveys to gather information on a broad set of non-cognitive skills from 1,368 eighth-grade students attending Boston Public Schools and linked this information to administrative data on their demographics and test scores. At the student level, scales measuring conscientiousness, self-control, grit, and growth mindset are positively correlated with attendance, behavior, and test-score gains between fourth- and eighth-grade. Conscientiousness, self-control, and grit are unrelated to test-score gains at the school level, however, and students attending over-subscribed charter schools with higher average test-score gains score lower on these scales than do students attending district schools. Exploiting charter school admissions lotteries, the authors replicate previous findings indicating positive impacts of charter school attendance on math achievement, but find negative impacts on these non-cognitive skills. The authors provide suggestive evidence that these paradoxical results are driven by reference bias, or the tendency for survey responses to be influenced by social context. The results therefore highlight the importance of improved measurement of non-cognitive skills in order to capitalize on their promise as a tool to inform education practice and policy.

The SDP Toolkit for Effective Data Use is a resource guide for education agency analysts who collect and analyze data on student achievement. Completing the toolkit produces a set of basic, yet essential, human capital and college-going analyses that every education agency should have as a foundation to inform strategic management and policy decisions.

Researchers from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, MIT, and the University of Michigan have released the results of a new study that suggests that urban charter schools in Massachusetts have large positive effects on student achievement at both the middle and high school levels. Results for nonurban charter schools were less clear; some analyses indicated positive effects on student achievement at the high school level, while results for middle school students were much less encouraging.

View the Press Release

View the PowerPoint Presentation

This paper combines information from classroom-based observations and measures of teachers’ ability to improve student achievement as a step toward addressing the challenge of identifying effective teachers and teaching practices. The authors find that classroom-based measures of teaching effectiveness are related in substantial ways to student achievement growth. The authors conclude that the results point to the promise of teacher evaluation systems that would use information from both classroom observations and student test scores to identify effective teachers. Information on the types of practices that are most effective at raising achievement is also highlighted.

Center researchers John Papay, Martin West, Jon Fullerton, and Thomas Kane investigate the effectiveness of the Boston Teacher Residency (BTR) in their working paper Does Practice-Based Teacher Preparation Increase Student Achievement? Early Evidence from the Boston Teacher Residency . BTR is an innovative practice-based preparation program in which candidates work alongside a mentor teacher for a year before becoming a teacher of record in Boston Public Schools.

Whether using the randomized lotteries or statistical controls for measured background characteristics, we generally find large positive effects for Charter Schools, at both the middle school and high school levels. For each year of attendance in middle school, we estimate that Charter Schools raise student achievement .09 to .17 standard deviations in English Language Arts and .18 to .54 standard deviations in math relative to those attending traditional schools in the Boston Public Schools. The estimated impact on math achievement for Charter middle schools is extraordinarily large. Increasing performance by .5 standard deviations is the same as moving from the 50th to the 69th percentile in student performance. This is roughly half the size of the blackwhite achievement gap. In high school, the estimated gains are somewhat smaller than in middle school: .16 to .19 standard deviations in English Language Arts; .16 to .19 in mathematics; .2 to .28 in writing topic development; and .13 to .17 in writing composition with the lottery-based results. The estimated impacts of middle schools and high school Charters are similar in both the “observational” and “lottery-based” results.

Improving Improvement: Introduction

Proving Ground Director David Hersch and NCRERN Director Jennifer Ash launch a new series, "Improving Improvement," in NNERPP Extra focused on leveraging the power of research-practice partnerships (RPPs) to build schools’, districts’, and states’ capacity to improve. ... Read more about Improving Improvement: Introduction

Heights, Southwest School Leaders React to State Report Card Grades

Newark Advocate highlights Proving Ground partnership with Licking Heights Local Schools’ district. ... Read more about Heights, Southwest School Leaders React to State Report Card Grades

Has the Presidency Skipped Gen X?

"While achievement growth in math ended up flat, English gains in Newark schools have significantly improved since Booker launched his reforms, according to a study by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard." ... Read more about Has the Presidency Skipped Gen X?

Textbook Adoption Was Once About ‘Going to the Right Dinner’ With Publishers. Now EdReports is Disrupting the $8 Billion Industry by Putting Teachers in Charge

"A March report from Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research found little 'evidence of differences in achievement growth for schools using different elementary math textbooks and curricula.'" ... Read more about Textbook Adoption Was Once About ‘Going to the Right Dinner’ With Publishers. Now EdReports is Disrupting the $8 Billion Industry by Putting Teachers in Charge

CMSD Campaign Inspires Browns Statewide Attendance Push

Proving Ground's new partnership with the Brown's Foundation and the Ohio Department of Education is covered by Cleveland Metro School District.

... Read more about CMSD Campaign Inspires Browns Statewide Attendance Push

Local News Outlets Highlight NCRERN District Partnerships

Local news outlets highlight the announcement of the National Center for Rural Education Research Networks district partners in New York and Ohio. ... Read more about Local News Outlets Highlight NCRERN District Partnerships

Harvard looking to help solve New York rural schools’ issues

Some New York rural schools are about to get an assist from Harvard University. ... Read more about Harvard looking to help solve New York rural schools’ issues

The Education Exchange: Do Students Learn More with Better Math Textbooks?

Some studies have found that schools can get substantial gains in achievement by changing textbooks. But a new analysis by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard finds little evidence of differences in achievement gains for schools using different math textbooks. ... Read more about The Education Exchange: Do Students Learn More with Better Math Textbooks?

The Gates Foundation is hoping better curriculum will boost student learning. A new study says, not so fast

CEPR's new research report on textbook efficacy, Learning by the Book, is featured in the following Chalkbeat news article. ... Read more about The Gates Foundation is hoping better curriculum will boost student learning. A new study says, not so fast

Study finds that curriculum alone does not improve student outcomes

Harvard publishes first multi-state study of textbook efficacy in the Common Core era ... Read more about Study finds that curriculum alone does not improve student outcomes

Against the backdrop of a contentious ballot question, charter schools in Massachusetts have faced scrutiny across multiple dimensions. This event brings together several of the preeminent researchers on the topic to share their findings, followed by a period of directed questions, and audience Q&A.

With the debate over the federal role in education at rest with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), it is time to refocus attention on how to help the states move forward and succeed using the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In this Askwith Forum, Professor Thomas Kane will share findings about CCSS implementation strategies from the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University. This will be followed by a panel of educators, who will share their experiences, pain points, and successes with the CCSS over this past year.

Learn more about Teaching Higher .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Public Health Rev

Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens: Evidence about the Impacts of School Uniform on Education and Health

This study uses a public health lens to review evidence about the impacts of wearing a school uniform on students’ health and educational outcomes. It also reviews the underlying rationales for school uniform use, exploring historical reasons for uniform use, as well as how questions of equity, human rights, and the status of children as a vulnerable group are played out in debates over school uniforms. The literature identified indicates that uniforms have no direct impact on academic performance, yet directly impact physical and psychological health. Girls, ethnic and religious minorities, gender-diverse students and poorer students suffer harm disproportionately from poorly designed uniform policies and garments that do not suit their physical and socio-cultural needs. Paradoxically, for some students, uniform creates a barrier to education that it was originally instituted to remedy. The article shows that public health offers a new perspective on and contribution to debates and rationales for school uniform use. This review lays out the research landscape on school uniform and highlights areas for further research.

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. Breaches of school uniform policy have resulted in court cases (e.g., [ 1 , 2 ]), and courts note that in focusing on the rights and wrongs of a particular uniform policy, the underlying issues driving uniform design and policy are neglected [ 3 ]. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the school year in many English-speaking countries there are numerous press articles about the cost burden to families of providing school uniforms [ 4 – 8 ], whether they are value for money [ 9 – 11 ], and whether garment design is fit for modern life [ 12 – 17 ]. Discussion seems stymied in a superficial argument about whether school uniforms are good or bad. Rarely do discussions point to empirical evidence about school uniform garment design and policy about uniform use. This situation begs questions as to availability of evidence for school uniform use, its effects on educational or health outcomes, and the underlying rationales for school uniform use.

This article applies a public health lens to review evidence about why we have uniforms and what effects they have on educational and health outcomes. A public health perspective was chosen to review evidence because it is explicitly designed to analyze impacts of broad socio-political forces and determinants of health on individual experiences. Further, public health sees education and health as mutually reinforcing and intrinsically linked. The one determines the success of the other. Consequently, much public health policy aims to optimize wider social policy settings to improve health and education [ 18 ], and encourage equitable outcomes especially for the most vulnerable populations [ 19 ]. It is also why the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes health in all government policies to improve overall population health ([ 20 ]). Therefore, attention to students’ physical and psychosocial health and wellbeing is important for enhancing educational outcomes. This includes evidence for the choice of school uniform garments and individual schools’ policy about uniform and how these affect student wellbeing. The evidence considered here suggests that uniform is of public health concern because its use and effects are prevalent, have impact and are amenable to improvement. Uniform use is prevalent and widespread globally. In their study of 39 PISA countries, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] identify five main geographic/sociocultural groupings where uniform wearing is common: an Anglo-Saxon cluster (United Kingdom, NZ, Australia, United States), Asia, East Asia (South Korea, Japan), the Americas (e.g., Mexico), and Europe. These authors also note that uniform prevalence is increasing. Regarding impact, evidence shows uniforms can impact directly and indirectly on the individual and on society in equity, health and educational domains for better and for worse. The reviewed literature suggests that any harms are amenable to intervention via evidence-based action. Meadmore and Symes [ 22 ] argue that uniforms are not as frivolous as they appear and warrant systematic attention. This article applies that systematic attention through a public health lens. It explores three questions: What is the evidence for the impact of school uniform on students’ academic and health outcomes; what social, cultural and political rationales are made for uniform use; and what human rights may be affected by school uniform choice? For conciseness, “school uniform(s) garments” will be referred to as uniform(s). The practice of wearing/using/mandating a school uniform will be referred to as uniform policy.

Databases that include health and education research were searched for peer-reviewed articles in English using the key word “school uniform” in the title keywords or abstract. The date range searched was from 2000 to (present), being October 2020. The results are detailed in Table 1 .

Database searches October 2020.

Oft -cited peer-reviewed sources that did not appear in the literature searches were also included in the literature review ( n = 25), as well as texts that were found in the initial work for this review. Texts were de-duplicated, yielding 197 texts. Records were screened for relevance and excluded 79 for being out of scope because of time constraints (not in English, PhD theses, conference proceedings). This yielded 118 full text articles to be assessed, of which 26 were excluded because they were off-topic for this review (e.g., industry information about supply chains; school uniform as a basis for a thought experiment; fetishism; reports on forensics; technical information about fabric properties). 92 studies were included in this review.

Note this study examines the breadth of evidence for uniform wearing. Study quality was not part of the analysis.

Articles fell into three broad groups: surveys/studies that elicited stakeholder feedback on some aspect of garment design or policy; or experience of uniform wearing; analyses of large datasets or administrative data; and political, philosophical/ethnographic, and legal analyses of rationale and impact of uniform use.

The first group comprised empirical research that examined data on some aspect of garment design or policy or uniform wearing experience. There was a mixture purposive samples and convenience samples. Studies varied in the number of participants, the number of sites from which participants were taken. Studies elicited views from stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, administrators, social workers, school counselor. Views were gathered via survey and/or focus group. Some surveys formed part of a case study. There were also stand-alone case studies and ethnographies, an RCT and an auto-ethnography.

12 studies examined garment properties for Sun protection, safety, design. The mix of stakeholders varied: students only ( n = 15); students and family/parents/caregivers ( n = 8); multiple stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and administrators, and/or social workers) ( n = 17). There were three randomized control trials. There were a mixture purposive samples and convenience samples. Studies varied in the number of participants, the number of sites from which participants were taken. The second group comprised analyses of large datasets ( n = 5), and one meta analysis on factors affecting educational outcomes. The third group were non-empirical studies. They included: policy summaries; legal analyses; historical commentaries on uniform’s development; socio-political analyses; political think-pieces; and one economic analysis.

Here, evidence has been arranged according to a public health lens of analysis. First, this section examines the proximate educational and health impacts of uniform garments and uniform policy on students to determine whether there are immediate health or education impacts of uniform use or policy. Second, rationales for uniform use are examined, as well as distal factors that influence student experience. This section examines the broader institutional, and socio-cultural contexts which inform uniform use.

Part 1: Literature for Educational and Health Impacts of Uniform

Does uniform influence educational outcomes.

Starting with the evidence for the impact of uniform on educational outcomes (the core in Figure 1 ), there is little convincing evidence that uniform improves academic achievement. Studies from the United States in the early 2000’s [ 23 , 24 ] note a positive correlation between uniform wearing and academic achievement (e.g., Bodine [ 25 ]). Later, in 2012 Gentile and Ibermann found a positive effect on grades and retention [ 26 , 27 ]. Stockton et al. [ 28 ] noted there was a greater perception of increased attendance and achievement after uniform was introduced. However, studies of large datasets and meta-analyses fail to find a link between uniform and academic achievement. Brunsma and Rockquemore’s (2003) response to Bodine’s assessment of their administrative data review in the late 1990’s reiterated that no overwhelming link exists between uniform wearing and academic outcomes (there were methodological disagreements about which data to choose and how they should be analyzed). Later studies by Yeung [ 29 ] and Creasy and Corby [ 30 ] noted multiple factors for academic achievement—but not uniform. In a synthesis of 800 meta-analyses on effects of all hitherto published variables of educational outcomes, Hattie [ 31 ] demonstrated negligible to no association between uniform and academic achievement itself. However, he notes that the ‘heat and impact of the discussion are as if [uniform] were obviously effective’ (p106) [ 32 ]. In a 2017 update to that study uniform was not listed among the 252 effects on educational outcomes [ 33 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is phrs-42-1604212-g001.jpg

Organization of evidence about uniform use.

Nonetheless, it appears that uniform may contribute to an environment that fosters academic achievement. Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] examined information from the PISA study on student experience of discipline within the classroom environment (listening, noise level, quietening/settling, schoolwork, starting work). This study involved a very large sample of students from across the globe. These researchers found a statistically significant difference related to settling to work between uniform wearing and non-uniform wearing samples. Thus, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] recommend keeping uniforms where already used and introducing them where not used. Similarly, Firmin et al. [ 34 ] found introducing uniform reduced distractions. Writing about the United States, DaCosta’s [ 35 ] study of students noted improved concentration and increased security in the school where uniform was introduced. A South African study reported that uniform helped to maintain classroom discipline [ 36 ].

However, settling to work and classroom discipline are two of many facilitators of learning outcomes [ 21 ], along with class size, funding levels, homework, and, importantly, factors related to the quality of the teacher (qualifications, personality, incentives, mentoring for new teachers). Given that teacher skill and relationship between student and teacher are established as influential factors on learning outcomes [ 33 ], some argue that expecting teachers to enforce school uniform rules detracts from teaching, learning, and good relationships [ 30 , 37 ], notwithstanding the classroom management benefits of uniform-wearing described by Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ]. Indeed, Da Costa [ 35 ] reports, the introduction of school uniform created opposition and non-compliance, distracting students and teachers from education. There are indications that uniform could create psychological barriers to education for vulnerable students, especially when it is a new phenomenon. Gromova and Hayrutdinova [ 38 ] found that for ethnic-minority newcomers to a school, uniform can simply be another strange element to get used to in a new environment.

One study argues that organisational and classroom management enhanced by uniforms may be achieved at the expense of other educational goals and values. Baumann and Kriskova’s [ 21 ] research ranks Korea and Japan highest in terms of settling to work and removing distractions. Yet Park’s [ 39 ] study found in Korea uniform was linked to stifling creativity, in spite of good academic performance. This is indicative only (a small study from one country), but highlights how much is not known about the impact of uniform on other domains of education.

Another effect of school uniform is that schools socialize students to certain explicit and implicit values and social norms and inculcate social skills that will help them get on in the world. Within that framework, school uniform provides what Vopat [ 40 ] describes as teachable moments (unplanned, yet important learning opportunities) to reflect on norms of society. There is no data that directly addresses non-academic learning outcomes from uniform. However, Vopat’s idea of teachable moments hints at why some administrators prefer a uniform [ 41 , 42 ], and a more formal one at that [ 41 ].

In some contexts, uniform is also instrumental to other goals: school security and students’ physical safety, aids student focus on learning. In South Africa, Wilken and van Aardt [ 36 ] observed that uniforms can make certain students targets of attack outside the school grounds. In South Africa and the United States uniforms are used to easily identify intruders on school premises and to reduce gang violence and theft of designer items outside of school [ 35 , 36 ]. However, in the United States one study found negligible evidence of uniform enhancing security [ 43 ], while another study found introducing uniform created only a lower perception of gang presence [ 44 ].

Overall, it appears that while uniform is a factor that removes distractions from classroom learning, thereby enhancing operational management, it has no direct impact on academic achievement and is not among factors that demonstrably improve educational outcomes. It may enhance school security, and influence schools’ broader educational and socialization goals.

Does Uniform Influence Health Outcomes?

Unlike for educational outcomes, there is a far more direct link between uniform garments and uniform policy and health outcomes. Health impacts can be divided into physical and psycho-social effects, though there is a significant overlap between the two. Physical impacts of school uniform relate to how uniforms facilitate physical activity during the day, whether uniform garments protect the wearer against known environmental hazards, whether the garments promote health and safety, and whether the garments are comfortable to wear. Psycho-social impacts are linked to fitting in (or not) with peers.

One effect uniforms have on physical wellbeing is their limitation or allowance of exercise. Encouraging regular physical activity is part of the WHO’s health promotion concept of health in all policies and settings. Globally, governments are trying increase physical activity among children and young people to reduce child obesity rates [ 45 ]. Additionally, physical activity enhances learning outcomes and improves wellbeing ([ 46 ]), therefore policies that promote planned and incidental physical activity positively influence educational and health outcomes. However, it appears that school uniform design and policy can pose a barrier to incidental exercise, particularly for girls. McCarthy et al. [ 47 ] found primary school girls were more active on sports uniform days and met government recommended daily physical activity levels on those days. Norrish et al.’s [ 48 ] study on the effect of uniform on incidental physical activity among ten-year-olds found that school uniform design could limit physical activity (measured by student self-report and pedometers). Correcting for choice of activity (ballgames, skipping vs imaginary play, verbal games), girls did significantly more activity during breaks on sports uniform days. Likewise, Watson et al. [ 49 ] and Stanley et al. [ 50 ] reported that recommended physical activity for school-aged children was not being met, especially for girls, where restrictive school uniform limited physical activity and created an explicit barrier to lunchtime play. Further, in an age of active transport policy, Hopkins et al. [ 51 ] found that school uniform style and lack of warmth was a barrier to cycling to school for some female secondary students, and Ward et al. [ 52 ] found both garment design and schools’ uniform policy hampered active transport among older teenagers. There are strong indications that uniform garments and policy about which garments can be worn directly impact on students’ physical health outcomes, for female students in particular.

While there is evidence on how uniform facilitates physical activity, there is little evidence on the psychological effects of uniforms on how students feel about doing physical activity in uniform. Unflattering or revealing (sports) uniforms may deter students from participating in sport. Focusing on physical activity, Watson’s et al.’s [ 49 ] study noted the complex social factors that affect physical activity, and how a unisex sport uniform could enhance the feeling of comfort and confidence. For instance, Pausé’s [ 53 ] auto-ethnography highlights the psychological barrier an unflattering sports uniform can pose to fat children’s participation in and enjoyment of physical activity as a good in itself (as opposed to a means to lose weight).

Physical health can be protected against known environmental health hazards by uniform garment design and policy implementation. However, school uniform policy (at national or school level) does not routinely address these hazards. In Australasia, ozone layer degradation results in high UV radiation levels in warmer months. Prolonged UV exposure results in skin damage and over the long term increased rates of moles and skin cancers across the population. Yet Gage et al. [ 54 ] found that uniformed schools had lower total body coverage than non-uniformed schools, albeit with greater neck coverage due to collared uniforms. This is despite evidence that hats with a brim and sun-safe clothing (covered arms and legs) can improve sun protection [ 55 ] while not increasing objective measures of body temperature [ 56 ]. Indeed, modeling from Australia indicates that slightly longer garments significantly alter mole patterns [ 57 ]. Of course the effectiveness of uniform garments (or indeed any garments) for sun protection depends on proper implementation of policy. For instance, in New Zealand Sunsmart is a voluntary school policy to optimize protection of children’s skin from sun damage and sunburn. However, Reeder et al. [ 58 ] found that Sunsmart policies were not consistently implemented, even among Sunsmart-accredited schools.

Uniform has also been used as part of measures to combat disease. In Thailand and other countries with endemic dengue, school uniform design, the use of insecticide-treated clothing [ 59 – 62 ], and how uniform is worn [ 63 ] have been investigated extensively in relation to dengue prevention, especially how to stop insecticide washing out of fabric. However, while the use of insecticide-treated clothing is supported by parents in these countries, willingness to pay for the uniform is linked to parental monthly income. Governmental willingness to subsidize treated uniforms is linked to overall cost, irrespective of effectiveness or potential health gain [ 64 , 65 ]. It appears that good garment design that protects against environmental hazards cannot be separated from good policy implementation and a financial subsidy if garment cost is high.

Interestingly, while environmental hazards and their impact on health were considered, no peer reviewed articles were found related to safe garment design e.g., Inflammable materials, removing strangling risks. The only information found on uniform policy and garment safety did not relate to garments but accessories (not uniform proper). It was from the United Kingdom, where the Health and Safety Executive found that schools had incorrectly applied health and safety legislation to ban certain non-uniform items of jewellery that had no link to causing physical harm [ 66 ].

Is it possible to achieve optimal uniform garment design? Researchers have examined different elements of uniform design, some related to health outcomes. There is a particularly interesting body of research emerging about properties of school uniform garments. Researchers have investigated how to standardize sizing [ 67 ], improve garment quality and durability [ 68 ], optimize materials, enhance style, include high visibility/reflectiveness for road safety, and ensure physical comfort irrespective of outside temperature [ 68 – 71 ]. This demonstrates that it is technically possible to design a uniform that meets cost imperatives, is physically safe, comfortable, and enjoyable to wear. These studies showed garment materials do not necessarily prioritize the wearer’s physical comfort. Functionality (durability, ease of care, ease of drying, stain and wrinkle resistance) is often preferred over comfort or safety (Kadolph, 2001 in 36). For example, polycotton is used instead of cotton because it is colourfast and fast-drying, despite not breathing well in hot weather.

It appears that no consensus exists on best practice for uniform design, who should be involved in design decisions, and considerations in policy development and implementation (e.g., health and educational impacts of garment design and policy, gender neutral options, non-physically restrictive garments). There is no data that discusses this point directly though some studies involve parents and students [ 68 , 71 ], and DaCosta [ 35 ] recommends involving students in co-designing the uniform, to develop a uniform that provides choice and flexibility. Gereluk proposes principles for a non-discriminatory environment [ 72 ], which provides helpful guidance on how to accommodate minority concerns into majority spaces. In doing so, he helpfully lists general elements to consider that can be applied to uniform design and policy. These are: health and safety; whether (any religious/cultural garment) is oppressive to (the wearer) or others; whether it significantly inhibits the educational aims of the school; whether (whatever item is not part of the uniform) is essential to one’s identity.

There is evidence that uniforms can be psychosocially protective of health. Uniforms remove “competitive dressing”—the pressure to wear certain (expensive) brands, colors, or styles [ 36 ]. Uniform removes most socio-economic signs of difference [ 73 ]. Wilken and van Aardt [ 36 ] and Jones (for higher socio economic status students) [ 74 ] report that school uniforms take away stress and family arguments about what to wear on school days. The positive psychological effect of removing competitive dressing probably only holds for students with a certain level of material wealth (see discussion below on equity of access to education and uniform cost). Thus, Catherine and Mulgalavi [ 75 ] found in Pakistan that school uniform had a positive effect on students’ self-esteem, particularly if they had the full and correct uniform. It seems for very poor students, school uniform requirements may simply become something else to worry about, but for others uniform removes a barrier to fitting in.

In addition to the ambivalence of wearers’ feelings, there are mixed data on the impact of uniform on bullying. In a study of one school in the United States, Sanchez et al. [ 76 ] found introduction of a uniform did not significantly change the school’s culture before and after a school uniform was introduced, though some females said males treated them better when they wore a uniform. Jones (United States) reported a reduction in bullying after uniform was introduced [ 74 ].

Indeed, Cunningham and Cunningham [ 77 ] note that while uniforms can reduce bullying, there will always be triggers such as girls choosing to wear trousers not skirts. Importantly, any dress is about more than clothing, indicating social relations, self-presentation, and formation in society, and is a sensitive topic in adolescence [ 78 ]. Indeed, Swain’s ethnography found that students who complied with uniform rules risked being socially excluded [ 79 ].

It appears that uniforms can be both protective and harmful, depending on context, how the student pushes the boundaries of uniform rules to fit in, and whether the student is part of a marginalised/socially disadvantaged group. Whatever the context, females are half of the population, and their physical and psycho-social health seems to be routinely and arbitrarily disadvantaged by uniform design.

Overall, in terms of health and education impacts it seems any psycho-social benefits will only hold if other psycho-social and physical harms to girls, and minorities are addressed. Table 2 summarizes the health and education impacts of uniform. From a health and education perspective, uniform’s biggest advantage is that it removes some distractions; it helps students to settle in the classroom and removes the worst of competitive dressing. If garments and policy are well designed, they encourage physical activity and can protect against environmental hazards. Nonetheless, poorly designed garments and uniform policies especially affect girls and minorities.

Uniform’s positive, neutral, and negative impacts on education and health outcomes.

Part 2: Exploring Social, Cultural and Political Rationales for Uniform Use

Since uniforms do not positively influence academic achievement and can have negative physical and psycho-social health impacts, what drives their use? Further, why are known problems in uniform policy and design not addressed? To answer these questions, it is important to consider the broader context in which uniform is used. The literature that addresses these questions can be divided into three groups. The first group examines the role of uniforms in institutions and the community; the second, the interaction between human rights and uniform; the third (dealt with in part 3 below) the relationship of uniforms to the idea of children as a vulnerable class of people who need special protection. Institutions, human rights laws and societal perceptions of children and childhood constitute important upstream/distal determinants of health and educational outcomes. All the above elements contribute to wider social settings that facilitate or prevent access to what people need to enjoy good health and education. Table 3 summarizes rationales for uniform use.

Implicit and explicit rationales for uniform use.

Uniforms as a Reflection of Schools and Communities

Schools are institutional extensions of overlapping communities: geographic, religious, or ethnic. Community norms reflect institutional and wider societal rules. Uniform signals internal culture to students and provides cues to outsiders about the school’s character.

Within schools, uniforms reinforce institutional culture, signaling school values to students [ 80 ], thereby identifying the wearer with objectives beyond the self. Along with school facilities and symbols [ 21 ], a well-disciplined body of students is associated with a certain type of dress. Additionally, some argue that uniforms contribute to a sense of affiliation in students, belonging [ 81 ], and pride in the school, especially after uniform has been recently introduced [ 82 ]. Affiliation is related to solidarity; yet there seems to be a tipping point when solidarity is undermined if the uniform is too expensive and excludes students [ 83 ]. Howell [ 84 ] argues that among charter school students he studied in the United States, uniform is only one element to increase participation and is far less important than other variables like family dynamics. However, claims about uniform fostering solidarity are not supported by empirical research on student feelings about belonging in the school context. Research into school belonging did not find a significant association between school uniform and a sense of belonging to the school community [ 85 ]. Instead, belonging is fostered by a supportive, respectful atmosphere and a sense of achieving.

It has been argued that uniforms communicate messages to those outside the school community. Stephenson [ 86 ] argues the main role of uniform has changed from primarily addressing poverty or removing differences marking class and gender to primarily signaling education standards, and the school’s place in the education market [ 22 , 36 ], showcasing the institutions’ disciplinary philosophy [ 27 ]. Happell [ 87 ] notes that in the United States uniform visually demarcates students and is associated with private education, improving the wider school environment [ 35 ], or maintaining the impression of strictness and safety [ 22 ]. Shao et al. [ 88 ] note that like corporate uniform, school uniform gives cues to the service environment—a more conservative uniform suggests more conservative values, higher socio-economic status, and by association higher academic achievement. Indeed, Bodine [ 89 ] notes that uniform reinforces and delineates social hierarchies and who belongs. Belonging can be inclusive, encouraging broad participation and access, or exclusive by drawing lines between people and putting up practical barriers to access, delineating who is and is not worthy of privilege [ 90 ].

Within institutions uniform is a management tool [ 21 ]. It has the veneer of solidarity, but there is no empirical evidence linking uniform to feelings of belonging to a school. Uniform also signals tradition, and communicates the place in the education market to outsiders, especially a school’s disciplinary and academic climate. The factors affecting a school’s choice to require a uniform is in turn affected by wider forces of socio-political climate and human rights.

Wider Forces: Socio-Political Climate

As illustrated in Figure 1 , the individual health and educational impacts of uniform are nestled in the broader school culture, which in turn is influenced by the wider socio-political context, influenced by the community’s values. A country’s history, power structures, and socio-economic patterns are thus played out through uniforms. Further, dominant societal values are the lens through which human rights and other implicit and explicit values are projected. Uniform wearing can be intrinsic to a greater good, or instrumental in reaching other goals. With this in mind, what data exist on the socio-political factors that influence uniform garment design and policy?

Uniform design and policy slowly changes alongside social and educational policy developments. Thus, New Zealand, uniform design has changed alongside New Zealand’s education policy and socio-political context [ 81 ]. Similarly, in China uniform has gradually incorporated more modern and Western influences in design over time [ 91 ]. In their discussion on the reasons for uniform, Meadmore and Symes argue that uniform wearing is a form of governmentality–the process of unconscious internalization of external values designed to maintain existing power structures. In this way uniform is a “disciplinary tactic” [ 115 ] embodying respectability, cleanliness, modesty, and inoffensiveness. Conformity means meeting the standards of an institution [ 92 ], explicitly in service of an ideal of equality, and implicitly to maintain the societal power dynamics expressed through institutions. Whether a form of governmentality or not, it is clear that uniform is associated with broader societal values.

In some societies, uniform wearing seems intrinsically linked to a greater societal good. Thus, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] argue that high PISA scores are associated with good classroom discipline, which is intrinsically linked to wider societal values. The authors hypothesize that in South Korea and Japan, Confucian values of self-discipline and conformity to ritual inform practical aspects of daily life. Baumann and Kriskova argue that conforming to social norms is part of being a good Confucian; thus, any penalty for breaching uniform standards (a social norm) is explicitly and intrinsically linked to becoming a better Confucian.

Alternatively, uniform wearing can be instrumental in reaching other ends. Hence, when uniform use became common in the Anglosphere in the 1800’s, there seems to have been a (noble) aim of making schools islands of fairness in an unfair world. Craik [ 93 ] states that in England school uniform aimed to equalize social class, creating social camouflage through functional, reasonably priced clothing. However, this rationale ignores wider societal power structures, and that uniform wearing may be mainly instrumental to another goal. Thus, in some post-colonial contexts uniform was part of a transfer of British values and seen as a way to civilize and promote a certain ideology [ 92 ]. In New Zealand, uniforms were inspired by military dress and were intended to encourage empowerment, belonging, and pride, as well as social camouflage [ 92 ]. In South Africa, school uniforms were imposed on the black population as a means of control [ 36 ]. Australian authors have hypothesized that certain types of school uniform historically represented respectability and happiness and promoted social integration. Wearing a school uniform provided a means for migrant children (and their families) to fit in [ 94 ]. Wearing a school blazer has been described as a cultural symbol of reaching and being included in a social ideal of wealth and educational achievement [ 95 ].

Some socio-political rationales are explicit and are part of clear public policy measures to shape society. For instance, Mujiburrahaman [ 96 ] describes uniform as part of Sharia law implementation in schools in Aceh; Moser notes it is part of fostering citizenship and identity in Indonesia’s schools [ 97 ]; and Draper et al. [ 98 ] describe how uniforms that use a hybrid of traditional and modern clothing styles, materials, and manufacturing techniques are part of a cultural revitalization project in Thailand. In the United States, from the mid-1990’s school uniforms have been explicitly promoted as a means to lower danger and violence in schools and remove classroom distractions [ 99 ]. Indeed, in the United States uniforms are often perceived as more neutral than dress codes because everyone wears the same [ 100 ], as opposed to judgements being made about clothing items against a standard. Overall it appears that uniform use is often driven by goals beyond health or education as values in themselves.

Part 3: Human Rights and Uniform Use

Human rights legislation supporting equity and freedom from religious or gender discrimination and protecting the rights of children has been discussed in conjunction with school uniform. In cases of disagreement about garment design or uniform policy and where institutional policy or social norms do not provide a solution, human rights law has been invoked to help reconcile different rights and values.

Human rights are overarching, universal entitlements that preserve the dignity of humans. Theoretically, human rights are interrelated and indivisible and should not be separated from each other [ 101 ]. Practically, the experience with uniform shows that simultaneously giving effect to different human rights is not straightforward. Social context influences how human rights are interpreted and given legal standing. Looking at the United States, Ahrens [ 102 ] notes that in the 1970’s uniform was of great constitutional concern (impinging of First Amendment right of freedom of expression), whereas nowadays few legal or constitutional problems with uniform are discussed, possibly because the overwhelming concern is student safety; the importance of identifying intruders outweighs concern over freedom of expression [ 103 ].

Equality vs. Equity

The human rights notion that all humans are equal is important to school uniform policy. As noted earlier, the idea that equality of access to education is enhanced by “social camouflage” is a principal historic and current rationale for uniform [ 36 , 89 ]. Proponents of uniform argue it creates equality and emphasize the benefits of homogeneity that outweigh any negative impacts: unity, a sense of belonging (although this point has not been demonstrated empirically), and group identity. In their view, the human right to equal treatment is enhanced by removing outward signs of social differences [ 36 , 89 ]. This may explain why in Malaysia, Woo et al. found that while students thought uniform unattractive, they conceded it reduced outward markers of differing socio-economic status [ 73 ].

However, an equality focus in uniform policy sidesteps the issue of who bears the brunt of equality as “sameness”. Equality focuses on same treatment, while equity focuses on outcomes, sometimes requiring different treatment to achieve similar outcomes [ 104 ]. Data show that uniforms are not intrinsically equitable. The cost of uniforms can affect students’ rights to access education. In addition to inequity of physical activity by gender and barriers for minority groups, the cost of uniform garments themselves is a determinant of access to education, and clearly unequally felt across society. The cost barrier that uniform poses to attending school is widespread, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Using Mongolia as an example, Sabic-el Rayess et al, [ 83 ] note that in countries where the very poor cannot afford uniforms, they do not attend school. Likewise, Simmons-Zuilkowski [ 105 ] found that in South Africa enrollment rates among the very poor are lower because of cost of uniforms. In Kenya, Mutengi [ 106 ] found a statistically significant link between uniform cost and education access, and Green et al. [ 107 ], Sitieni and Pillay [ 108 ] and Cho et al. [ 109 ] describe free uniform as part of support and incentive packages for at-risk children to attend school [ 110 ]. In Ghana, Alagbela [ 111 ] and Akaguri [ 112 ] show that uniform cost creates a barrier to education for the very poor. One contradiction to this trend comes from Hidalgo et al. in one study in Ecuador [ 113 ]. The authors found that providing uniform decreased attendance. However, the authors note that the study was not conducted as anticipated; some families promised uniforms were not supplied with them, and many in the study group had already purchased a uniform (it was therefore a sunk cost), so uniform cost was not a factor that decided school attendance. Cost is also a likely concern among all parents in high-income countries. In the United Kingdom, Davies [ 114 ] examined uniform cost and supply and surveyed parents who were happiest when uniform could be sourced from a mixture of designated shops and high street/generic stores and found that uniforms were cheapest when items could be brought from anywhere. However, as in low income countries, uniform creates an unequal cost burden across the population. In the United States, Da Costa [ 35 ] highlights the economic burden on the poor of buying a school uniform. In South Korea and the United States, poorer parents spend a higher percentage of their income on uniforms [ 36 ]. In New Zealand, a survey of parents [ 115 ] found school uniform cost is a significant burden for poorer families. In Scotland, Naven et al. [ 116 ] reported how uniform cost created such a barrier to education that the state changed its clothing grant policy to help ease the financial burden on families.

Of course cost is not the only equity issue in uniform use, but it is an important one. Davies’ [ 114 ] United Kingdom report on uniform supply and cost found that garment quality was a main influence on purchasing decisions, followed by availability and cost. Surveying parents’ and educators’ attitudes to uniforms, for both groups Davies found uniforms were considered worthwhile because they are a long-term investment: generally long-lasting, infrequently replaced, and cheaper over the student’s career than non-uniform alternatives. However, Davies’ and other data (e.g., Gasson et al., Naven et al., Catherine and Mugalavai, Simmons-Zuilkowski) suggest the large initial upfront cost is a barrier for poorer families. Another reason for concern is that sameness does not result in equity or improve human rights protection. Deane [ 117 ] argues that justifications for uniform based on equity are not well considered because the mere wearing of uniform does not create equity, and does not magic away other differences [ 117 ]. In practical terms, equity through uniforms is inevitably an imperfect idea: even if uniform policy allows students to choose to wear any items from a list so long as items comply with style or color rules, expensive branded items, or other garment choices would inevitably signal differences in economic status, wearer style, and individual preferences. It seems for the very poor/marginalized in any society, uniform can be simply another barrier to education because of the focus on equality, not equity. Ironically, those most in need of education may be denied it via a mechanism that was originally instituted to remove barriers to education.

Uniform and Freedom of Religion

In addition to general rights to equal treatment, specifically protected rights are of concern when considering uniform, particularly freedom of religion and the right to non-discrimination because of gender. Uniform rules and the right to freedom of religion is an example of where courts are asked to reconcile seemingly conflicting rights with each other. For instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art 14) protects freedom of religion [ 118 ]. Nonetheless, this right is not unfettered and can be limited if others’ rights are impinged, and its application depends on how individual countries legislate to support human rights.

Theoretically, uniforms should not impinge on religious freedom. Practically, the situation is not so clear-cut. Complex questions about how religion is represented and how it is recognized are often played out through uniform [ 119 ], especially in liberal democracies. For some, adhering to a school uniform policy means not observing religious requirements. In Australia, where states are required to have a uniform policy, direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of religion is forbidden. Yet there is no clarity on whether a school can have a policy that is silent on students’ religious beliefs and practices [ 120 , 121 ]. Australian courts have found that exceptions to uniform rules can be made to avoid injury to religious sensibilities, doctrines, beliefs, or principles (e.g., allowing wearing yarmulke or hijab). In England (which has a longstanding uniform tradition), the case of Begum sought to balance religious freedom to wear Sharia-appropriate clothes against the right to education, school uniform policy [ 122 , 123 ], and women’s rights. In Begum the court found that social cohesion, protecting minority rights, and ensuring religious freedom must be balanced [1 , 124 – 126 . In Begum , the judgment shows how tricky it is to reconcile all human rights in themselves, let alone apply them within the context uniform policy requirements.

Whatever the social context, outward signs of faith can challenge both uniform rules and wider societal values such as secularity in public institutions. Gereluk [ 72 ] argues for reasonable accommodation and mechanisms to redress potential unequal treatment of minorities. What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” appears to be context-dependent.

Uniform and Gender

Similarly to promoting equity and freedom of religion, human rights protect non-discrimination by gender. The discussion so far has shown that whatever the rationale, uniform garment design has a greater impact on girls, particularly on their physical health. This differential effect has been addressed by human rights legislation. For instance, The New Zealand Human Rights Commission agreed with a complaint of discrimination on gender grounds by two female-identified students [ 127 ] who argued that the requirement to wear a skirt disadvantaged them because it restricted their movement. Settlement was reached when the school added culottes (shorts that look like skirts) to the school uniform. In this example, human rights legislation allowed schools to have uniform codes for males and females, providing uniforms do not disadvantage one gender or group.

Differential treatment by gender is underpinned by historical and some current thought, though it is rarely discussed in relation to uniform. This is possibly because it is linked to deeply entrenched and normalized gender roles. Political and philosophical research addresses this point. Dussel [ 128 ] argues that school uniforms hamper, restrain, and try to domesticate girls’ bodies. Happel [ 87 ] argues that school uniform is linked to gendered performance, where school uniforms underpin sex and gender roles, because they restrict movement and confirm traditional gender identities. Happel [ 87 ] argues that because skirts allow for exposure of underwear, buttocks, and genitals, girls are taught modesty/immodesty through a garment. Girls are thus objectified because they have to curb their behavior because of another’s gaze. In this review no evidence was found of any of the above restrictions caused by boys’ uniform. Notably, girls’ uniforms tend to be more expensive [ 106 , 114 ], illustrating that even here there is a “pink tax” for female-oriented products that perform the same function as a unisex/male alternative [ 114 , 129 ]. Further, normalized gender roles affect gender-diverse students, already a group at risk of exclusion. For gender diverse students, non-inclusive uniform policies are particularly problematic [ 130 ] and affect them disproportionately [ 17 ]. Non-inclusive uniform policy relies upon the idea that clothing is an essential element of gender identity and that any fluidity or flexibility in dress rules risks undermining individual and collective gender identity. There is no evidence of gender identity being so fragile [ 131 ]. In practical terms, Henebery [ 132 ] argues that even if uniforms have unisex options, they are still split by gender, where skirts are limited to biological girls. Interestingly, Bragg [ 133 ] notes that a school uniform policy that strictly enforces male/female uniforms is in stark contrast with the broader and more fluid social understanding and representations of gender that students are exposed to, especially in Western countries.

It appears that uniforms place a physical restriction and price premium on girls, and policy does not routinely consider gender diverse students. This is driven by socio-cultural norms and negatively impinges on their human rights, despite the overarching right to equal treatment irrespective of gender.

Uniform and Children and Young People’s Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is another area of human rights that often clashes with uniform. The right to freedom of expression (Art 13 UNCRC [ 134 ]) can be restricted in respect of the rights and reputations of others, protection of national security, and public order. Article 12 (UNCRC, 1989) details that free expression is given weight in accordance with the age and development of the child. Some hold that school uniforms are inherently restrictive, arguing that school uniform hampers expressive rights and normal identity exploration, constitutes intrusive control of group behavior (e.g., 35), and symbolizes oppression [ 131 ]. Conversely, others argue argues that it is nonsensical to say that uniforms crush self-expression when there are many other creative outlets [ 89 ]. There is no empirical evidence on this point. Vopat takes a different approach and considers children’s moral and psychological development. Looking at expression and developmental stage, Vopat [ 40 ] separates self-expression into two categories: mere expression, and substantive expression. Mere expression is simply about what a person likes/dislikes, whereas substantive expression is an outer manifestation of deeply held values or another specific intention. Vopat [ 40 ] argues that small children lack the cognitive ability for substantive expression because they do not have the psychological capacity for it yet. Nonetheless, Vopat [ 40 ] suggests that uniform may be a learning point for students. Children need thinking time to become their moral selves. School uniforms provide explicit teachable moments, opportunities to think using different moral frameworks to examine the utility of different social attire and freedom of expression in context, and children’s understanding of and critical thinking about social appropriateness of dress [ 135 ], which enhances learning outcomes [ 40 ]. Conversely, and despite these learning opportunities, Deane [ 117 ] argues that uniform’s blindness to or suppression of difference implicitly dampens the ability think about and discuss difference; thought is constrained because uniform creates an implicit understanding that strangers should be the same as oneself, and where there is difference, there is danger. Consequently, uniform suppresses recognition and discussion about differences in ethnicity, religion, or class [ 117 ].

There is no empirical evidence either way that uniform constrains freedom of expression. There are hypotheses that uniform provides a teaching opportunity about appropriate dress, and socializes people to a particular dress standard. Other ideas suggest that uniform allows students to rebel in safe confines [ 81 ].

Children’s Rights and Minors as a Vulnerable Group

The rights of children sit alongside other rights. These rights protect children because the wider socio-political climate identifies children and minors as a vulnerable class of people who need protection.

However, there is no agreement about what rights of children exactly should be protected, and many wider concerns about children are projected onto uniform [ 89 ]. Through an institution limiting clothing choice or requiring certain clothing, Bodine [ 89 ] argues that uniform protects childhood by protecting children from sending messages with their clothing choices that they do not fully understand. However, exactly what is protected is unclear. Vopat [ 40 ] argues protection should be linked to the child’s moral development and ability to reason, balanced against Article 12 of UNCROC, which includes the duty to consider children’s voice in decisions that affect them. Some [ 87 ] argue that uniform should be done away with altogether because of harm to children’s human rights. Irrespective of children’s vulnerability and human rights, Brunsma and Rockquemore [ 136 ] argue that even if uniforms do not harm, and young children cannot yet exercise their rights, there is no justification for imposing uniforms in an educational context, especially if uniforms do not improve educational goals.

Overall, while human rights are universal, the way they are expressed in particular cultural contexts varies, driven by socio-political forces. It appears that the idea that uniform is inherently equitable is flawed. It does not level social class, and is not blind to religion, gender, and socio-economic status. It does not necessarily consider cultural and individual identity or diversity. Data on human rights and uniform show that uniform policies result in unequal impact of garment design and policy on girls and religious minorities. Data on freedom of expression is equivocal. Whatever the case, wider sociocultural issues are clearly played out through uniforms, and it appears that uniforms can become a proxy for other issues, particularly considering the special status of children and young people. Blanket approaches to uniform policy can be repressive of cultural identity/diversity and ignore entrenched power imbalances [ 22 , 131 ]. By scrutinizing the outcomes of uniform policy, it is clear that many uniform policies have neutral/minimal impact for the majority, but the minority must compromise cultural or religious values to comply with uniform rules. Females make up half the population, yet uniform design limits their ability to participate in incidental physical activity, a proven enhancer of health and educational outcomes.

This review demonstrates that far from being a “trivial relic” [ 22 ], school uniform is an important yet neglected public health issue that affects all students who are required to wear it. As a preliminary review, this study maps the conceptual landscape of school uniform garment design and policy in a public health framework, and brings evidence together to show health and education impacts of school uniform use. The review shows that school uniform is important, but not for commonly believed reasons. First, there persists a belief that school uniform in itself enhances academic outcomes. This is unsupported by evidence—there is no direct link between uniform and academic achievement [ 33 ]. However, uniform does contribute to a more settled classroom environment [ 21 ], which facilitates learning. Second, some studies argue uniform can distract from a good rapport between students and teachers, which is linked to improved learning (30,37). Third, despite common belief, uniform has no empirically supported impact on enhancing a feeling of belonging to a school [ 85 ]. Notably, there is a general paucity of evidence for use and a gap between what is believed about uniform and what is supported by empirical evidence. It appears that uniform use and policy is a neglected area of research: given its widespread use there is surprisingly little empirical evidence about its use or effects at all.

Concerningly, psychological and physical health impacts of uniform have been neglected. Positively, uniform removes the psycho-social barrier of competitive dressing. Indeed, well-designed uniform garments that are comfortable to wear, do not restrict physical activity for all students, that protect against environmental hazards, plus a uniform policy that is inclusive of all students (irrespective of gender/gender identity) can enhance student physical and psychological health [ 47 , 48 , 54 ]. Neutrally, uniform can both increase and decrease bullying. Negatively, inflexible uniform policies and garment design disadvantage girls, gender-diverse students, and overweight students because they do not feel confident in participating in physical activity while wearing uniform garments (47–51,53). From a physical health perspective, empirical evidence demonstrates that girls’ physical health is particularly disadvantaged. Girls make up around half the school-aged population, so the demonstrated link between poor uniform design and worse physical and psycho-social health for girls is of concern. Physically restrictive uniforms can hamper girls’ physical and social participation in school, especially physical activity during breaks and on the journey to school. Poorly designed sports uniform may also deter girls’ and overweight children’s participation in timetabled physical education. For all students, there is no evidence of systematic consideration in uniform policy of health and safety and protection from environmental hazards that permits students to wear garments to suit the weather conditions, or that ensures garments are comfortable to wear.

Further, gender-based inequity is inherent in uniform; girls’ uniforms are more expensive and more restrictive. Inequity exists for religious minorities and gender-diverse students who have to dress to fit the uniform policy rather than dress so they feel physically comfortable. Because garment design reflects the norms of the dominant culture, religious and ethnic minorities, and gender-diverse students often have to compromise beliefs and identity to comply with uniform rules.

This review shows that uniform garment design and policy focus on equality (same treatment) at the expense of equity (different treatment to achieve similar outcomes). While uniform removes the psycho-social pressure on individuals and families of competitive dressing and outward signs of socio-economic differences between students, it does not eliminate inequity. Paradoxically, uniforms can worsen inequity. Worldwide, for the very poorest students, the cost of a uniform may be prohibitive, creating a barrier to education before the students even arrive on school grounds [ 83 , 105 – 107 , 109 – 112 , 114 – 116 , 137 ]. For some students the disadvantages will be cumulative. Using the public health lens of analysis highlights this avoidable inequity.

Why do we compel children to wear uniforms and persist with policies that detract from physical and psycho-social health, and that disadvantage poorer students? This review has highlighted that uniform has become a proxy for many issues. Financial and political economies are projected onto uniform policy and garment design. An organisation’s history, institutional stewardship, values, and traditions are often embodied in uniform, which is possibly why certain designs and materials are so enduring. Uniform signals a school’s place in the education market and gives external and internal indications of the school culture (22, 26, 36). Uniform also appears to enhance school operations (21). In classrooms it helps students settle to task and help identify intruders and improve security (36,43), or the perception of security (44).

A public health lens helps to shed light on uniforms, and their impact on health and education. The public health frame of analysis brings together and organizes data from different disciplines to illuminate questions that are important to population health, illustrating proximate factors and distal factors to individual experiences. It has also shown that uniform merits public health interest: if uniform use is prevalent, its use impacts on health and educational outcomes, and, importantly, school uniform garments and policies regulating their use are amenable to improvement, with an eye to improving equity.

This study’s principal limitation is that data is only drawn from English-language research largely focused on the Anglosphere or where articles were available in English, yet much of the world that wears uniform is not Anglophone. Potentially important data may have been missed. Further this study’s primary data are primarily peer-reviewed articles, which ensures rigor, but leaves out a depth of information from other sources. Further, articles of all types (including commentaries) were included because this research focused on evidence about uniform use, rather than the quality of that evidence. For time constraints conference proceedings and PhD theses were excluded. Note that there were variations in the types of studies done. For instance, the physical impacts of uniform use (e.g., on physical activity of wearers, protection against environmental hazards) were measured using quantitative or qualitative/quantitative mixes of design with larger sample sizes. For instance Norrish et al’s [ 48 ] work on physical activity for girls was one of the few that included objective and subjective measures of the phenomena under investigation, with a repeated measures crossover design (same group tested in two different conditions). Finally, as with other areas of inquiry, philosophical pieces or commentaries often argue against the status quo rather than defend it. It is possible that there exist more positive or neutral impacts of uniform on education and health than have been hitherto documented, especially in empirical research.

Limitations notwithstanding, this research will be of interest to those within the public health community, those involved in uniform regulation and design, and those involved in educational management. It will also be of special interest to the general public, who will be better informed about the evidence for what uniform achieves, and what can be done about making it better. Conceptually, issues related to uniform design are of interest to researchers of other populations (e.g., prisoners, military) with diminished capacity or whose choice of clothing is restricted.

This review has important implications for future research. It has highlighted gaps in knowledge about garment design and uniform policy and their impacts.

Regarding garment design, more information is required on different priorities that inform design choices: durability, serviceability, safety of materials, quality, and comfort to the wearer, particularly with an eye to protection against environmental hazards, and how to make garment styles enduring over time as well as inclusive, comfortable, and health-promoting.

Other issues like cost, value for money, environmental sustainability and ethical sourcing of materials may be of interest. Furthermore, different stakeholder (student, parent, teacher, school administrator) perspectives could be measured to further explore what factors influence garment design, how those different factors inform uniform use policy within schools, extending on multi stakeholder studies similar to that done by Wilken and van Aardt [ 42 ] or McCarthy et al [ 41 ]. Regarding uniform use policy, there is little information about how school rules are developed and what principles might look like to ensure uniform use is education and health promoting. Regarding impacts of design and policy, further studies are required with objective and subjective measures of whatever phenomenon related to uniform is being investigated. In particular, more studies are required on the health and psycho-social impacts of uniforms. For instance studies such as Hopkins [ 51 ], Norrish et al. [ 48 ] and Watson et al. [ 49 ] could be replicated in other jurisdictions and cultural settings.

In terms of public policy, there is little peer-reviewed evidence on supply chains, competition law, and profits that drive uniform costs. There is little evidence about how to reduce the cost barrier of uniforms for the poor; how different societal values are incorporated into uniform design (e.g., environmental protection and school/community tradition, or, given the impacts of uniform on health and access to education, whether any form of government regulation of upfront cost, uniform policy or garment design is required (especially for state-funded schools).

An important practical implication is making the evidence about uniform’s education and health impacts available in a form easily accessible to school administrators and governors to inform their uniform garment and policy decisions. After all, educators are experts in education, not garment design or uniform policy development, so it is unsurprizing that, left alone to organize uniform, they may not develop the most health and education-promoting garments or policies.

Uniform use is deceptively simple. It is so commonplace and ordinary, however, the questions it sparks are complex and are related to deeply held views of what is normal, traditional, and socially acceptable. Yet uniform use has real impacts on health and education, for better and for worse. This review shows that uniforms may be the right diagnosis for creating an equitable learning environment, providing cost-effective garments over a student’s learning career, and easing the psychological pressure of competitive dressing. However, this review shows the importance of getting the prescription right. The efficacy and effectiveness of uniforms as a vehicle for equitable access to education and good health depends on the right prescription for uniform policy and garment design that remove potential negative effects of poor garment design and policy.

A public health lens reveals that much school uniform garment design and use policy negatively affects the poor, girls, religious and ethnic minorities, and gender-diverse students. It is a sad irony that these are the very groups who could benefit most from the equitable access to education that uniform is supposed to facilitate. This review also shows how environmental hazards, health and safety concerns, and garment comfort are neglected for all uniform wearers. There is no natural reason why any of this should be so.

Fortunately, any negative educational and health impacts of school uniform garment design and policy are amenable to change. The clarity that this review provides about the evidence for uniform’s impact on health and education may provide a starting point to ensure uniform is as healthy and education-promoting as possible and to build on the advantages uniform offers. By examining evidence of how uniform and uniform policy impacts on students’ health and wellbeing, perhaps it will be easier to establish a common idea about school uniform’s purpose(s), with a view to improving wearer experience. If the educational and health impacts of uniform are clear it could be possible to improve wearer experience to ensure that garments are desirable, equitable, healthy, and safe [ 22 ], and that both policies and garments enable all students to learn and thrive in modern life.

Author Contributions

The author undertook this entire project.

Time spent on this research was funded from my ordinary teaching salary.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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 .

We're Hiring!
Help Center

School policy

Most Cited Papers
Most Downloaded Papers
Newest Papers
Save to Library
Last »
Korean reunification Follow Following
Student health Follow Following
International Politics Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

Academia.edu Publishing
We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

School Management Takeover, Leadership Change, and Personnel Policy

Low-performing, high-poverty, public schools notoriously struggle to attract and retain good teachers. This paper studies a setting where independent organizations, including charities and businesses, take over the management of under-performing schools, while funding remains public. Exploiting the staggered expansion of English Sponsor-led academies since the early 2000s, we show that the Sponsor-led takeover leads to substantial changes in the teaching body and the school personnel policy. The probability that the Sponsor appoints a new headteacher doubles upon the takeover, with the new headteacher being, on average, better paid, and more likely to come from outstanding schools. The takeover also induces teacher sorting, with older and lower-achieving teachers leaving the school, and new teachers joining the Sponsor-led school from outstanding schools. Lastly, Sponsors substantially restructure teachers’ rewarding scheme and abandon a pay scale entirely based on seniority, leading to a 10 percent increase in pay dispersion across equally experienced teachers.

We are grateful to Sarah Cattan, Olmo Silva, Samuel Sims, and Fabian Waldinger for their useful comments. We further thank Esther Burn, Andrew Eyles, Annalivia Polselli, and Vincenzo Scrutinio for their constructive suggestions. A special thanks goes to Eleonora Alabrese, Mariana Racimo, and Gabriela Noemi Villalba Marecos for excellent research assistance. We also acknowledge helpful feedback from participants in the 2023 NBER SI, 13th IWAEE conference, Helsinki GSE seminar, Nuffield Foundation workshop, seminars at Glasgow Strathclyde and Budapest KRTK Institute, and Essex internal seminar. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Nuffield Foundation. Please, do not cite this paper without the authors’ consent. All mistakes are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

20 December 2023

Disclosure Statement

The author declares that he has no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper "School Management Takeover, Leadership Change, and Personnel Policy".

He is grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council for support through the LSE Centre for Economic Performance.

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 .

15th Annual Feldstein Lecture, Mario Draghi, "The Next Flight of the Bumblebee: The Path to Common Fiscal Policy in the Eurozone cover slide

The video above is decorative and not illustrative.

Policy Topics

Nicholas Burns giving the 2024 graduation address.

Public Leadership & Management

Rise to the enormous challenges before you, Ambassador Nicholas Burns urges HKS Class of 2024

Public service is written into Harvard Kennedy School’s DNA, Burns said, and urged graduates to “change the world for the better.”

Greyscale images of Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Danielle Allen, Sarah Wald and Arthur Applbaum headshots with a red bar over half of the graphic.

Gender, Race & Identity
Fairness & Justice
Education, Training & Labor

At Harvard Kennedy School, experts debated diversity policies, academic freedom and free speech

Tarek Masoud listening to a speaker during the Middle East Dialogues series.

International Relations & Security
Democracy & Governance

Diving deep into disagreements on the Israeli-Hamas war at Harvard Kennedy School

Tarek Masoud speaking to a guest at the Middle East Dialogues series.

Six disparate expert voices at the Kennedy School on the Israel-Hamas war

Strategy is only partly an illusion: “relative foresight” as an objective standard for evaluating foreign policy competence.

Foreign policy-makers must grapple with complexity, uncertainty, and subjectivity.

Social Policy

Thinking about Parents: Gender and Field of Study

In this paper, we implement a lab-in-field experiment among around 2000 children enrolled in 14 middle schools in Italy to investigate whether thinking about parental recommendation affects students’

Creating student leaders through civics

Building on the literature of student leadership development, Natalie Sew, Adrianne Billingham Bock, and Danielle Allen share an approach to civic education: Deeper Civic Learning.

Review of Shaping and Reshaping the Global Monetary Order during the Interwar Period and Beyond: Local Actors in-between the International Institutions

This publication is a multifaceted analysis of the global monetary regime's evolution, from the disintegrating impacts of the Great Depression during the interwar period to the often inequitable and d

Watch & Listen

Human Rights

From the Frontlines: Reflections on Decades of the Racial Justice Movement

Environment & Energy

The populism of self-destruction: How better policy can blunt the anti-clean energy backlash that threatens humanity’s future

A man with short dark grey hair and glasses poses with his hands on his hips in front of a blue background with pixelated blue boxes at the bottom

What Really Happened at COP 28 in Dubai

Geoff Dancy and Phoung Pham on Justice Matters

Justice for Victims: Lessons from Around the World

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox.

Rick Hess Straight Up

Education policy maven Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute think tank offers straight talk on matters of policy, politics, research, and reform. Read more from this blog.

Does School Choice ‘Work’?

In “Straight Talk with Rick and Jal,” Harvard University’s Jal Mehta and I examine the reforms and enthusiasms that permeate education. In a field full of buzzwords, our goal is simple: Tell the truth, in plain English, about what’s being proposed and what it means for students, teachers, and parents. We may be wrong and we will frequently disagree, but we’ll try to be candid and ensure that you don’t need a Ph.D. in eduspeak to understand us.

Today’s topic is educational choice and whether it “works.”

Rick: It’s been another busy spring for educational choice, so let’s dig into the heated debate about whether choice “works.” Here’s where I’m coming from: I’ve supported full-spectrum educational choice since the last century, including intradistrict choice, charter schooling, school vouchers, education savings accounts (ESA), and the rest. That said, regular readers also know that I’m critical of the absolutist rhetoric favored by some choice advocates, over-the-top claims for choice, and the insistence that choice works. As I see it, educational choice is part of the answer to our challenges, but it isn’t the answer. Choice enables more parents to find options that are right for their child, creates more room for the emergence of promising new options, and offers educators more say as to where they’ll work. These are all very good things.

But educational choice programs are no one thing. They vary dramatically, from relatively restricted open-enrollment programs that give students some choice among district schools to ambitious ESA programs that radically reimagine how schooling works. Just within charter schooling, there are vast differences from state to state in who is permitted to authorize schools, how they are authorized, the goals they are required to meet, and so forth. Broadly asserting that choice is “good” (or “bad”) ignores that it means many different things depending on context, policy, and practice.

In short, choice isn’t a bag of magic beans. Worse, suggesting it is makes it less likely that anyone will do the hard work necessary to make choice programs deliver. Ultimately, the how of choice matters mightily. How tough is it for good new schools or programs to emerge? How do we ensure that scam artists aren’t ripping off families and taxpayers? How do parents find out what the options are? How does the financing work? The answers to questions like these determine whether a school choice program works for the families that participate or not.

Anyway, that’s how I tend to approach all this. Curious to hear your take, especially given how much you’ve thought about these issues in the context of your scholarship on institutions and deeper learning.

Jal: Yet again, there is a surprising amount of agreement here. Choice can mean very different things depending on the context and the nature of the regulations. In some states, even fairly proven providers can’t open new schools, whereas in others, licenses are offered to schools that have no track record or plan. As I’ve talked with graduate students coming from all over the nation, their views of choice often vary significantly depending on what state they are coming from.

From an innovation perspective, I think the hopes of the choice movement have not been realized. Charter schools, in particular, were created based on the idea that they would use the freedoms they had been granted to try out new possibilities, which might, over time, influence traditional public schools. But in practice, most charter schools, including a number of the most well-known ones, have mostly just done the same old thing—the same seven-period days, same subjects, same teaching methods. Even Nina Rees, the former head of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, acknowledges that charter schools frequently haven’t been as innovative as their advocates have hoped. The reasons for this are almost overdetermined: Teachers teach as they were taught, parents expect school to look the same as what they experienced, external measures like state tests and college admissions reward conformity, etc.

If we wanted to take advantage of some of the benefits of choice to generate more genuine innovation, we would need to make some changes. For instance, we would have to alter the external ecosystem: If we want schools to be organized around students doing more authentic work, then schools have to be evaluated on the basis of students doing that kind of authentic work. These evaluations might include performance assessments or balanced scorecard-style dashboards. Or it might look like the state getting out of the business of measuring outcomes entirely and trusting that parents will be able to select the schools that work for their kids, without having one set of measures that standardizes everything. (Ted Sizer advocated market over state accountability for this reason in The Red Pencil .) A more split-the-middle option would be to have the state perform periodic accreditation reviews, such as those that are used in England. This would allow schools to experiment as they like but offer some protections that public institutions are meeting a certain floor of public goals.

What do you think, Rick? Has choice produced “innovation”? How do we create quality without standardization?

Rick: You know, it’s almost disturbing how much common ground we find in these exchanges, even surrounded by frenzied hyperbole (with Kentucky’s lieutenant governor recently thundering that “‘school choice’ is nothing more than welfare for the well-to-do”). I’m always struck how crazy it is that we’ve ceded so much ground to the self-interested industry of outrage-peddling politicos and culture-war grifters.

But that’s a sermon I’ve preached many times, so I’ll get back to the point. I agree with you both that choice works largely by creating room for better solutions to emerge . . . and that it mostly hasn’t. As you note, this is due to the failure (of even its supporters) to embrace the kind of ecosystem that fuels rethinking. For me, it’s useful to think of this as a humane, organic vision of school improvement. Now, talk of choice as “humane” and “organic” can sound odd when the debate is filled with talk of “wars on public education” and “failing public schools.” But all this wild-eyed rhetoric misses the mark. The promise of choice is not that, tomorrow, schools will magically be “better.” The promise of choice-based systems is that, over time, they create room for educators and families to build better solutions.

This should all be intuitive to anyone who’s spent much time talking school improvement with principals or district leaders. Conversations are peppered with phrases like, “I’d like to do this, but the contract requires . . . ,” “I’d like to pay them more, but HR says . . . ,” or “I’d love to move those dollars, but we’re not allowed. . . .” Educators wrestle with layers of rules, regulations, and contract provisions. That’s why choice can be so appealing: It can make it easier for educators to pioneer promising new school models. School vouchers and ESAs make it feasible to offer alternatives to low-income families who’ve long felt trapped in local schools. Charter schooling enables educators to get a new school approved by a charter authorizer without having to spend years pleading with district officials for flexibility, facilities, and approval.

This kind of inertia is hardly unique to education. Older organizations are rarely good at managing change. They tend to grow rigid, routinized, and hierarchical with time, making it tougher to leverage new technologies or meet changing needs. That’s why the average life span of a Fortune 500 company is just 50 years. When we tell educators they’ve no path other than “fixing” aged systems or schools, we put them in a nearly impossible position.

That’s one reason I’m optimistic about choice today, in the wake of the pandemic. As I noted in The Great School Rethink , the emergence of microschools, learning pods, and hybrid home schools; the adoption of large-scale ESA programs; and the explosion of home schooling have together changed the choice landscape. Choice is no longer mostly about a handful of broadly similar urban charter school networks; today, it’s far more decentralized, dynamic, and geographically dispersed. Of course, these new changes have also surfaced new challenges, ranging from accountability for public funds to questions of staffing and logistics. Our ability to thoughtfully navigate these will determine the success of this next era of educational choice.

Wondering what you make of this changing landscape and what it means going forward, pal.

Jal: Embracing a “humane and organic” approach to school reform? If you don’t watch out, you’re going to get kicked out of the GOP, Rick.

I agree with your idea that the emerging choice landscape—particularly the growth of home schooling, learning pods, and microschools—is much more varied in its goals, means, and approaches than the charter schools that dominated the dialogue in the aughts and 2010s. There also seems to be a much more fundamental willingness to rethink what is taken for granted. This can range from parents who want to resist the standardizing pressures of schools to those whose kids aren’t being served well by the peer or racial dynamics of such schools.

There isn’t yet much research about these efforts, so what I know about them is pretty partial. But still, there is a sense that these folks are motivated by a much more human focus than past reformers. Rather than being committed to grand ideals like social mobility for other people’s children, these are people who are looking at their own kids not as abstractions but as real human beings who are not being served well by school. We can hope that what they generate is much more varied and authentic and that it serves the wide diversity of interests that young people bring to the table.

At the same time, the idea of unschooling and escaping the conformity of public education is not a new one, nor is it a surefire way to educate children successfully. Experience suggests that there are certain Romantic ideas that will turn out to be not entirely true. While intrinsic motivation and self-directed learning are important (and in much too short supply in regular public schools), for most kids, they won’t be sufficient without some structure, community, and routine. Some kids listen better to other adults than they do to their own parents. Thus, there is a lot to be figured out in this emerging world: Who should “teach”; what sorts of structures, communities, and routines should replace the ones previously provided by school; and what models work and for which kids.

To make this a bit more personal, we were home schoolers for most of one year during the COVID-19 pandemic. We had a bright 6-year-old who was bored by virtual school and would click “leave meeting” rather than partake in the community-building activities his school had designed for 1st graders. We enrolled him and his best friend in a little school in our living room. We used some materials for science and social studies that my wife found on a home-schooling site and signed up for Beast Academy , a virtual math program for bright kids who like math. Beast Academy was a hit and lasted well past the pandemic. The home-schooling materials we got were more mixed: Some landed and some didn’t. For ELA, we had him read (what he wanted) and write (what he wanted). This was good, but only worked because his kindergarten teacher had already taught him to read. Eventually, the friend had to go back to school, and our son got sad and lonely without him, and so he went back to school. The lesson here is that what we call “school” is really a bundle of things—curriculum in different subjects, teachers, friends, specials—all of which have to be replaced in ways that work. This is much easier said than done.

One obvious question is what the role of the state is in this process. When we home schooled, we just had to fill out a form with the district at the beginning of the year saying what we were going to do and then one at the end saying what we had done. This seems a little light to me. I think some kind of performance of understanding in different domains is important to ensure that real learning has taken place. But the trick, as is always the case with any alternative arrangement, is that if we put too tight strictures on what counts, we are going to lose the innovation that choice can potentially unleash. Finding a way to manage this balance is the key to making the new choice movement more innovative than the old.

The opinions expressed in Rick Hess Straight Up are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Image of students working at desks, wearing black and white school uniforms.

Sign Up & Sign In

COMMENTS

(PDF) Implementing school policy effectively
This paper reports on an empirical study, Catholic Education Melbourne's Understanding School Engagement in Research project, which sought to better understand research engagement amongst 67 ...
The impact of school policy and stakeholders' actions on student
Research aims. This paper aims to explore indirect effects of school policy related to improving teaching and the SLE on student achievement. Specifically, we examine whether the school policy has an impact on student achievement through changing the actions of teachers. ... there are two variables of interest, school policy and teacher actions ...
Educational Policy: Sage Journals
Educational Policy (EP) focuses on the practical consequences of educational policy decisions and alternatives. It examines the relationship between educational policy and educational practice, and sheds new light on important debates … | View full journal description. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University
The Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) at Harvard University is a unique partnership among districts, states, foundations, and university-based researchers designed to leverage school-, teacher-, and student-level data to address education policy questions and improve student outcomes.
The Dimensions of School Discipline: Toward a Comprehensive Framework
School discipline is an issue of utmost importance to educational policymakers, researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders because of long-standing disparities in who receives punishment and experiences the impact of exclusionary discipline on education and long-term life outcomes. Students with disabilities, non-heterosexual youth, low-socioeconomic-status students, low-performing students ...
The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A
Abstract Objective: Bullying threatens the mental and educational well-being of students. Although anti-bullying policies are prevalent, little is known about their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the methodological characteristics and summarizes substantive findings of studies examining the effectiveness of school bullying policies. Method: Searches of 11 bibliographic ...
A literature review of school leadership policy reforms
Education research is typically heterogeneous and multidisciplinary, and the research on school leadership is similar. As the sources come from heterogeneous fields of research, the author has classified them into different but interrelated fields of study: education policy, school improvement, school leadership and comparative policy studies.
School policies and the success of advantaged and disadvantaged
Krzysztof Karbownik Postdoctoral researcher - Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. ... score gaps 6 vary dramatically across American school districts. In this latter paper ...
Integrating Policy into School Safety Theory and Research
During the past 40 years, school safety policy and real-life events have shaped the development of research, interventions, and theory (American Educational Research Association, 2013; Astor & Benbenishty, 2019a; Astor et al., 2013; Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence, 2013).Likewise, research and theory in psychology have strongly affected global school safety ...
School Improvement & Redesign
Aided by $200 million in private philanthropy, city and state leaders launched a major school reform effort in Newark, New Jersey. In this study, researchers evaluate the impacts of Newark's education reform efforts, starting in the 2011-2012 school year. Through a partnership with the University of Colorado Boulder and Northwestern ...
School Policies and Practices to Support Effective ...
This series of papers was originally presented as a symposium at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education ...
Full article: Preventing School Violence and Promoting School Safety
They unpack research relating school context and school safety practices, and offer implications for future research, practice, and policy. While the research literature has considered over a dozen school discipline models since the 1970s, variants of SEL and SWPBIS have predominated over the past 20 years.
Implementing school policy effectively
View PDF. 1 Implementing school policy eﬀectively Kelly-Ann Allen, Andrea Reupert, and Lindsay Oades Introduction Evidence-based policies are critical to the way that contemporary schools are run. Policies serve regulatory functions, and may also create standards of quality for teaching and learning, and opportunities for authentic engagement ...
Education Sciences
Policy expectations for the role of research evidence in educational decision-making have grown exponentially in the U.S. and globally, yet there has been limited attention to school capacity to engage in evidence-informed improvement. In this paper, I address this gap by first conceptualizing principal leadership for evidence use and, second, use this conceptual lens to examine large-scale ...
The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A
Conclusions. Anti-bullying policies might be effective at reducing bullying if their content is based on evidence and sound theory and if they are implemented with a high level of fidelity. More research is needed to improve on limitations among extant studies. Keywords: school, bullying, policy, law, effectiveness.
Full article: Perceptions of School Uniforms in Relation to
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 ...
PDF Effective School Discipline Policies and Practices
Research Summaries NASP Research Summaries 1 A resource from the National Association of School Psychologists │ www.nasponline.org │ 301-657-0270 │ 866-331-6277 ... & Burns, R. (2015). Preventing school violence: assessing armed guardians, school policy, and context. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38 ...
Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens: Evidence about
This review lays out the research landscape on school uniform and highlights areas for further research. Keywords: school uniform, public health, equity, health impacts, ... For instance, in New Zealand Sunsmart is a voluntary school policy to optimize protection of children's skin from sun damage and sunburn. However, Reeder et al. ...
School policy Research Papers
Schools are in a unique position to promote healthy dietary behaviors and help ensure appropriate nutrient intake. This article describes the characteristics of both school nutrition services and the foods and beverages sold outside of the school meals program in the United States, including state- and district-level policies and school practices.
PDF A Policy Analysis of Philippine School System Reform Using ...
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 96 (2021) 136-152 A Policy Analysis of Philippine School System Reform Using Advocacy Coalition Framework Krizia 1MAGALLANES , Jae Young CHUNG2*, Suyeon JANG3 A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Purpose: This study aimed to examine the development and outcome of the new Philippine
School Management Takeover, Leadership Change, and Personnel Policy
School Management Takeover, Leadership Change, and Personnel Policy. Emma Duchini, Victor Lavy, Stephen Machin & Shqiponja Telhaj. Working Paper 31994. DOI 10.3386/w31994. Issue Date December 2023. Low-performing, high-poverty, public schools notoriously struggle to attract and retain good teachers.
Policy Topics
Public service is written into Harvard Kennedy School's DNA, Burns said, and urged graduates to "change the world for the better." ... Foreign policy-makers must grapple with complexity, uncertainty, and subjectivity. ... In this paper, we implement a lab-in-field experiment among around 2000 children enrolled in 14 middle schools in ...
PDF Tips for Writing Policy Papers
market. In the world of policy, white papers guide decision makers with expert opinions, recommendations, and analytical research. Policy papers may also take the form of a briefing paper, which typically provides a decision maker with an overview of an issue or problem, targeted analysis, and, often, actionable recommendations. Briefing books ...
The effectiveness of school uniforms on students' academic achievement
Cherry Hill Elementary, in Maryland, was the first public school to adopt a uniform policy. In 1994, the Long Branch School system in Southern California became the first public school district that required school uniforms (Anderson, 2002). ... issues of school uniforms. This research also includes studies that support the claim that
Does School Choice 'Work'? (Opinion)
Education policy maven Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute think tank offers straight talk on matters of policy, politics, research, and reform. Read more from this blog. School Choice ...
There's a strong push for more school psychologists
Around the country, there are shortages of school nurses, social workers, and counselors. New teachers leave the profession at a rate of 44% in the first 5 years, according to a 2018 study (Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force, Consortium for Policy Research in Education).
MOE School Staff Developer (SSD) Networking and ...
Dr Teo Chew Lee, Deputy Centre Director at the Centre for Research in Pedagogy & Practice and Senior Education Research Scientist at the Office of Education Research (OER) and other OER colleagues were invited to the School Staff Developer (SSD) Networking and Engagement session on 8 May 2024. The theme of the session was on the development of 21st Century Competencies (21CC).