Hearsay and Myths Regarding Effectiveness of Uniforms

Hearsay/Myth

Truth

1. Climate for Learning

 Legal Realm

 Purpose

 Who Are We? 

 Definitions

 Important Links

 Polls and Petitions

 Uniform Info

 Contact Us

 Search Site

 Join APROD

 What Can You Do?

 R U Counted

 UNIFORM MYTHS

http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm

Dr. David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore’s study “The Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement” published in The Journal of Education Research (Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62) found just the opposite:

“A negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement was found.” Pg. 1

"Our findings show that students who were forced to wear uniforms actually performed several points lower on standardized tests." http://www.uah.edu/News/1999rr/uniforms.html

ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/order.pdf

The study “Order in the Classroom: Violence, Discipline, and Student Achievement” by Paul E. Barton, et al and published by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) specifically studied this and found that this was not the case. 

“The notions that school uniforms and zero tolerance for gangs would reduce school disorder and consequently improve student academic performance were not supported.” Pg. 18

Review of the Literature shows this is unfounded:

"School Uniforms: A Critical Review of the Literature," David L. Brunsma. http://www.geocities.com/school_uniforms/report2.html

In examining the perception studies that have been done on school uniforms, Dr. Brunsma explained that:

Correlational analyses attempted to “test” these perceived benefits by looking at compliance rates (as determined by the principal), academic achievement and attendance rates. There were no statistically significant correlations linking the uniform policy compliance rates with increases in either academic performance or attendance

From a critical research standpoint, however, if there exists no evidence beyond perception that uniforms affect the very processes of concern, then what difference does parental support make, if the support they give is based on anecdotal perceptions and empirically questionable assumptions?

…

Other authors have commented on this Halo Effect saying that this indicates that the “benefits of uniforms are more perceptual than real” (Hinchion-Mancini 1997, p. 63) and that “uniforms seem to be a way of circumventing, rather than solving the problem of teacher prejudice” (Kohn, cited in Posner 1996, p. 2)…

In examining small-scale effectiveness studies Dr. Brunsma explained that:

She found that standardized test scores did indeed increase after the implementation of the policy; however, she links this basic increase to students being in “a consistent academic program for a second year and good test preparation practices” (Murphy, 1997: p. 67); thus, arguing that the increase was not due to the school uniform policy.

In examining the two other large scale effectiveness studies Dr. Brunsma explained that with regard to the ETS study:

Their main finding of concern here is that schools who required school uniforms did not differ significantly on any of their dependent measures of delinquency (drug use, non-serious infractions, and serious infractions) than schools who did not require uniforms. These results replicated Brunsma & Rockquemore’s (1998) findings. Therefore, via their assertion that school order affects academic achievement, uniform policies also had no impact on academic achievement.

Articles showing that this is unfounded:

School Uniforms Are Not Proven To Increase Academic Achievement

Marylou Tousignant, Staff Writer, The Washington Post, March 01, 1996, Pg. A01, HEADLINE: Trying Uniforms on for Size; Policy Fad May Not Fix Schools // acs-VT2000 http://debate.uvm.edu/eesample/084.html

“What’s more, it’s still unproved to many that having Johnny wear a tie to school, and Susie a plaid skirt, will help them learn better. And critics of uniforms point out that most policies have been adopted at the elementary school level, which is not where the serious problems of violence and gang activity have flared. In fact, when uniforms were tried at Forestville High School in Prince George’s a few years ago,” the kids rebelled,” said guidance counselor Cecilia Smith, because`` it was going to take their individuality away.”

There Is No Certainty That Dress Codes Reduce Violence Or Increase Academic Achievement

Amy Mitchell Wilson, Spring, 1998; Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Article: Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate // acs-VT2000 http://debate.uvm.edu/eesample/084.html

Although dress codes are increasing in popularity throughout the United States, educators do not uniformly agree upon the benefits produced by these regulations. There is no certainty that dress codes reduce school violence or improve academic achievement. Furthermore, strict dress codes, which school officials justify because they are aimed at preventing gang violence, have been adopted in several areas that do not have gang problems, undermining some school official’s justifications.

2. Campus Safety and Security

Once again national studies do not support this:

http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm
According to the Brunsma/Rockquemore study:

“Our findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems or attendance.” Pg. 1

ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/order.pdf
   The ETS study states:

“The existence of policies on school uniforms or gang colors proved unrelated to levels of delinquency.”  Pg. 3

http://mandatoryschooluniform.org/debates.html
As for gangs, they can choose allowed colors for their colors.   In at least one case, the limited color range mandated in a uniform policy created "ganging", where groups of students decide to wear certain combinations of the allowed colors.

Gang members are also identified because of their school uniforms.  

Mums call for action on gangs preying on children
          by: Alex Melvin Harrow Times, (07.05.04)  

"TWO Kingsbury mothers are calling for action to rid the area of teenage gangs after both of their sons were mugged twice in the exact same place within a month....

The second mother told a similarly disturbing tale. Her 15-year-old son, whom she wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, was also mugged twice in the same area as Saajan.

His attacker was also a 15 or 16-year-old black youth, wearing Kingsbury High School uniform."

A Review of the Literature shows this is unfounded:

"School Uniforms: A Critical Review of the Literature," David L. Brunsma. http://www.geocities.com/school_uniforms/report2.html

In examining small-scale effectiveness studies Dr. Brunsma explained that:

… Stevenson found: 1) no difference in school discipline incidents (actually incidents went up by about 12%, and, by conventions with samples this size is a statistically significant increase), 2) no significant decrease in fights; 3) no significant decrease in weapons possession incidents; 4) no differences in assault/battery before and after the uniform policy; 5) no effect of uniforms on decreasing vandalism; 6) no significant decrease in the number of suspensions; and, 7) the number of school crimes did not differ significantly from a time when the schools had no uniforms to after uniforms were established.

In examining the two other large scale effectiveness studies Dr. Brunsma explained that:

1)   With regard to the decreases found at Long Beach USD:

First, Stanley herself clearly states that “it is not clear that these results are entirely attributable to the uniform policy” (1996, p. 431) and “caution should be used in interpreting such data” (1996, p. 433). Stanley is absolutely correct in her assertions that in the absence of adequate controls (i.e., other changes occurring in the schools at the same time, added security measures, socio-economic factors, school climate issues, etc.) such correlational data do not support a causal argument.

2)   With regard to the ETS study:

Their main finding of concern here is that schools who required school uniforms did not differ significantly on any of their dependent measures of delinquency (drug use, non-serious infractions, and serious infractions) than schools who did not require uniforms. These results replicated Brunsma & Rockquemore’s (1998) findings.

How is requiring certain solid colored shirts with collars and khaki pants going to stop someone from wearing clothes that are 20 times too big?  In uniformed schools kids have still be seen wearing khaki pants that were too big for them so they looked as if they were falling off. 

Most schools that complain about this already have a dress code in place already with language that prohibits this attire and yet it is not enforced by the district.  How is preventing children from wearing flowers, stripes, plaids or other appropriate colors or clothing going to stop them from wearing oversized clothes, especially if it is already prohibited? 

No Empirical Evidence Of School Uniform Advantages, Especially In Terms Of School Violence

Sarke, Dena M.   "Coed Naked Constitutional Law: the Benefits and Harms of Uniform Dress Requirements in the Public Schools",  78 B.U.L. 153 (February, 1998)

“Student uniforms are not a panacea for all school-related problems, however. Critics of uniform programs point out the lack of statistical evidence substantiating the proposed benefits. See, e.g., Alvez, supra note 2, at 9 (asserting that no empirical evidence exists showing that dress codes inhibit school gang activity); Modzeleski, supra note 7, at 417 (conceding that evidence supporting school uniforms is “anecdotal”). 

Why isn’t there tons of empirical evidence supporting the claims of pro-uniform supporters after all these years?  Because it is a baseless claim.  And you shouldn’t rely on the anecdotal ponderings of some.  After all what is an appraisal of a piece of artwork worth, if the person who forged the artwork does it?  Most of the claims spewing from pro-uniform supporters are just hand-me-down claims made from the original implementers of uniforms and here is what we know about that: 

Williams, Darlene, “School Uniforms: The Raging Debate”  http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformDWilliams.html 

While the positive reports emerging from some school districts with uniform policies seem to lend credence to this position, upon closer examination, flaws begin to appear. In Long Beach, California, the first district to have a widespread mandatory uniform policy in the public schools, the initial reports concerning drops in crime and discipline were astonishing. Assault dropped by sixty-seven percent, vandalism by eighty-two percent, and robbery by thirty-five percent. Overall crime was reduced by seventy-three percent the first year the policy was in place ("K-8" 1). Unfortunately, these radical improvements were, at times, attributed exclusively to the new, mandatory uniform policy. During a telephone interview in April 1996, Dick Van Der Laan, Long Beach Unified School District spokesman, stated that the only change which had occurred in the district, prior to the improved discipline results, was the implementation of the uniform policy. However, in the study conducted by Drs. David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore of the University of Notre Dame, a closer look at the Long Beach case revealed that several other reforms were put in place at the same time or shortly prior to the implementation of the uniform policy. So, while uniforms were the most visible change, the improvements were more likely attributable to the other programs which included, among other initiatives, a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for the improvement of teaching methods (Brunsma and Rockquemore 16).

And as for the studies that have been done and seem favorable to uniforms:

Kendrick, Carelton, Ed. M. LCSW, “Uniform-ly mistaken,” Family Education Network,  http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,5-3048,00.html

Nowhere in this study is there an assessment of why these reductions occurred or what underlying variables influenced these behavioral changes. During this transition year to school uniforms, the Long Beach school district also implemented other significant policy and practices changes. A research study that does not take all factors into account cannot be considered scientifically valid.

Another variable that changed that was not accounted for deals directly with the data collected.  Corning, Joseph,   “School Uniforms” http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/Social_Issues/School_uniforms.shtml

Under the new California Safe Schools Assessment School Crime Report, only vandalism over $100 is included. Some prior years' incidents were under $100, so the actual reduction is less than this.

Dr. Brunsma has done a critical analysis of the studies done to explain this.  http://www.geocities.com/school_uniforms/report2.html

Sifting through the literature on school uniforms, one is struck by the overwhelming reliance on anecdote, perception, personal experience, and hearsay presented as evidence for the successes and/or failures of school uniforms. The lack of theoretical insights and empirical evidence within these articles is not surprising during times when little scholarly research specifically devoted to investigating such issues existed (i.e., before 1998). The often-cited Long Beach data (discussed more below) was the primary piece of empirical evidence; however, this study suffered many limitations. Limitations or not, empirical evidence or not, much of the writing on the impact of uniform policies on student outcomes still ignores the available research and continues to surround itself with anecdotes, politics, fear and drama. The observation that the literature is ignoring research and reiterating the same themes again and again is not new (Behling, 1994; Black, 1998; Hinchion-Mancini, 1997; Thompson, 1999; King, 1998; Paliokas, Futrell & Rist, 1996; Posner, 1996; White, 2000; Wilkins, 1999). These authors recognize the need for more rigorous empirical research; yet, in the face of pressures to publish, in the desire to enter an opinion into the debate and movement, individuals continue to write “pro and con” articles based on little to no evidence and instead “pressing forward” on the basis of previously published anecdotes.

3. School Unity and Pride

“…what is one man's comfort and inspiration is another's jest and scorn.”

"The findings in this case study do not support the claim that school uniforms have a positive effect on students' self-esteem (Board of Education, 1997)."

McCarthy, Teresa M. and Josephine Moreno. A Case Study of Students' Self-Esteem and School Uniform Opinions in an Urban Middle School. [Monument, CO]: International Textile and Apparel Association, 1999.

What about the effect  of a uniform policy on autistic and other neurologically impaired children? Some of these children cannot recognize faces of people and cannot tell the other students apart except by their clothing differences. Some of these students also have to wear certain clothing to connect with their own sense of self, or to provide other neurological stimulation needs.

These children are already fighting an uphill battle to survive socially in a school environment. A uniform policy is likely to make that situation for them far worse.

4. Economics

Who said Dockers are cheaper. Gonzales, Shelley, “What the younger set will be wearing this fall”, Houston Chronicle, 08/08/91

Dressier days call for twill "Dockers" pants. But at about $20 a pop, they can get pricey for everyday wear.

	Two sets of clothing is now required and that is most assuredly more expensive then one set.  Prior to the uniform the clothing would be worn both at home and at school.  Now you need a set for school and a set for home.  That is unless you can’t afford a second set.
	Hand-me-downs from relatives cannot be worn unless they are from the same school or adhere to the policy.
	Parents who did not buy name brands prior to uniforms are being forced to spend more then they previous did on the required clothing or the required brands (i.e. Dockers as opposed to non-designer jeans.)
	Some uniforms are much less durable than say denim, and it is not less expensive for parents who have to buy clothing more often.
	Because some clothing colors fade faster, blues and other colors that were once accepted at the beginning of the school year or end of last year are no longer an acceptable color, thus forcing parents to buy new clothing to replace perfectly good clothing that is now rendered unacceptable by the schools.
	Because a child grows throughout the year, shirts that fit ok at the beginning of the year come untucked more easily by the end of the year and parents are forced to buy shirts sooner, before the end of the school year instead of waiting to the next school year, in order to keep their children from getting sent to suspension for an untucked shirt. Parents spend more time and money washing the two sets of clothes that kids wear each day.  The clothes they have to wear to school and the clothes they change into when they get home.

As for the statement that it is "good for more unfortunate students" I would like to point out that this is simply not true. 

	There are members of our group who have had to choose between feeding their families and buying uniforms so that their children could attend school and get an education.  Does anyone believe that it is better to go without eating so that they can get an education? What is wrong with their regular clothing? What is wrong with stripes, flowers or prints?  What is wrong with blues that are not navy?  What is wrong with purples, pinks or bright colors?  Why on earth do we need to put a color prerequisite on clothing in order for children to receive an education?  Certainly a child can learn in stripes just as easily as they can solids.  Who's telling these “unfortunate students” that they are not good enough now? Who's telling them that they are unacceptable if they do not dress like everyone else?
	A grandmother up near Dallas couldn't afford to buy clothing for her grandchild who was staying with her and the clothing that the local charity could provide didn't adhere to their policy and so the child spent months in in-school suspension, isolated from others because of the heinous crime of wearing clothing that, while perfectly acceptable attire within our society, did not meet the arbitrary mandates set down by a few.  Once again, I fail to see how this makes it better for "unfortunate students."
	What about those who can't afford to buy a second set of clothes?  They end up wearing their uniforms everywhere, even on "their own time."  If they have to give up meals to afford to buy the expensive uniform clothing, they certainly cannot afford to buy a second set.  Or what about the girl in Alvin ISD who had a full ride scholarship to college but lost it because she was written up for not wearing a belt and thus lost her place in the National Honor Society for disciplinary action?  You can keep on trying to convince yourself that it is better for "unfortunate students," but that doesn't make it true.
	I could go on and on, but I do not have all day.  I do need to make one more point though.  Even if you want to dismiss the truth of what is really happening, can you tell me how it is better for someone who is financially less fortunate to make everyone dress the same?   It is only drilling in the concept that it is unacceptable to be different instead of teaching them that it does not matter what they are wearing as long as they are doing their best to achieve.  I am teaching my children that they are just as good and just as fortunate in their hand-me-downs or off the sale rack clothes as any other kid whose parent is willingly to spend $50 on a pair of jeans or $150.00 on shoes.  I wish parents who wanted uniforms would try teaching their children that for a change.  But I forgot this is the age of victims.  Poor, poor me, I cannot afford to spend $50.00 on jeans so everyone who can should not be able to either. Well just so you know, I cannot afford to spend $50.00 on a pair of jeans either.  If I can't get them for around $10-15, I don't get them. But I certainly don't believe that I should feel ashamed of that fact and I'm not about to teach my children that they should feel less fortunate then someone who can, because my family does not base its worth on such material possessions.

So which “unfortunate kids” are we talking about?  Are we talking about the kids who have to choose between eating and going to school or are you talking about the "unfortunate" ones who feel shame because they can only afford to spend $20.00 on a pair of Dockers instead of $50.00 on a pair of designer jeans?  Oh the shame.

6. Dressing Simplified

As for the possibility that it has eliminated the morning struggle for some, what about the many parents who now have to struggle with their children because of these policies?  What about the parents of those children who were wearing perfectly acceptable clothing prior to these policies and who are now experiencing struggles in the morning as a direct result of these uniform policies?

But on a more serious note, a parent's rights cannot be infringed upon because another parent doesn't want to struggle with their child on what to wear. There is no compelling governmental interested created as a result of any morning tug-of-war.

7. Respect for Authority

This very subject was addressed in an article "Respect rules in uniform dispute - Long-term effect appears dubious" by Mary Kay Dirckson which ran in The Sun Herald on September 10, 2001 (Biloxi, MS).

Susan Newman, a social psychologist at Rutgers University and author of "Parenting An Only Child," said that as long as a parent's arguments are "rational and executed in a dignified manner," they can set a good example.

"Standing up to the school board demonstrates to a child that a parent believes in something," Newman said. "It can also tell a child that 'My parent loves me, wants the best for me, and is willing to invest the time and energy to get it.' "

....

"There are ways to do things, and then there are ways to do things," said Jane Bluestein, author of the book "Creating Emotionally Safe Schools."

"If we do things with respect, they will learn respect."

Parents who disagree with school policies can be in a tough position, Bluestein said.

"You want to support the school, but at the same time, schools make rules that may not be in the best interests of the students," Bluestein said.

...

But that doesn't mean there can't be disagreements between students, parents and teachers on policy, she said. It just means disagreements have to be approached constructively.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/archives/ 
(You will have to pay a small fee to the Sun Herald to view this complete article on-line.)

And even if you wanted to completely disregard parental rights, there is still a conflict between authorities.  If the local government is doing something that the state government doesn't allow, or is in violation of the Constitution, isn't it our DUTY as citizens to oppose it? Or is that just stuff we teach the students in government class, but don't really expect them to believe?

8. Uniform in the Workplace

• The job one decides to takes is a voluntary decision - the potential employee must decide if the benefits of the job outweigh restrictions on their life, such as arriving on time, or wearing certain clothing. Students have no legal choice about attending school.
  
  
• Look around at major corporations - even the mighty Electronic Data Systems has dropped its stringent dress code.   What does "the richest man in the world" wear when demonstrating new software products to the world?   Do the captains of "Big Blue" always wear suits during business briefings?   The myth that "the clothes make the man" has had its bluff called, despite billions of advertising dollars.
  
  
• The 'training' argument says that when you are employed, you are likely to have to wear a uniform. Is this true? What are the odds that children will wear a uniform later in life? Typically, the occupations where people have to wear uniforms are the lower paid jobs, nothing to look forward to, really. Generally, the more educated people are, the less they wear uniforms later in life. Look at teachers, they don't wear uniforms! Well-paid workers tends to reject uniformity, and for good reason, the demands of the future include qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, individuality, originality, a spontaneous personality, being a self-starter, taking initiatives, being able to cope with change, etc. And even the people who do wear a uniform later in life are unlikely to accept such a silly costume as a school uniform. Only for a prostitute is the school uniform an obligatory part of their professional wardrobe (and one may wonder why). What is the logic behind forcing children in uniforms? That children have to get used to wearing a uniform, just in the unfortunate case that they will end up in such a job later in life? Applying the same 'logic', they would be insufficiently prepared for plain-clothed work, since they did not wear plain clothes at school all the time.