Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Research Activity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Research Activity

967

Published on

A bunch of handouts for students to use to practice how to research, organize sources etc. …

A bunch of handouts for students to use to practice how to research, organize sources etc.

Here's the set:
http://www.slideshare.net/samlandfried/8th-grade-may-11-research-activity
http://www.slideshare.net/samlandfried/8th-grade-may-11-lesson-plan
http://www.slideshare.net/samlandfried/8th-grade-april-20-how-do-i-research-handout
http://www.slideshare.net/samlandfried/8th-grade-april-20-how-do-i-research-1

Published in: Education, Lifestyle, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
967
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Do uniforms make schools better?www.greatschools.orgBy Marian WildeFor the past decade, schools, parents and students have clashed over the issue of regulating studentattire. In 2007, cases involving an anti-Bush T-shirt in Vermont, an anti-gay T-shirt in San Diego andTigger socks in Napa, California, made their way through the courts, causing many to wonder whetherthis debate will ever be resolved.Meanwhile, researchers are divided over how much of an impact - if any - dress policies have uponstudent learning. A 2004 book makes the case that uniforms do not improve school safety oracademic discipline. A 2005 study, on the other hand, indicates that in some Ohio high schoolsuniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates, although no improvements wereobserved in academic performance.Why do some public schools have uniforms?In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting theperceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided toadopt a school uniform policy.President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996State of the Union speech, "If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets,then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms."1
  • 2. The psychological influence of the police uniforminShare0By Richard R. Johnson, M.S.IntroductionMost people can identify a police officer by the official police uniform. When citizens on a busy street arein need of help, they scan the crowds of pedestrians looking for the distinctive uniform of a police officer.Drivers who come to an intersection occupied by a person in a police uniform usually willingly submit tothat persons hand directions. Criminals usually curb their unlawful behavior when they spot a uniformedpolice officer in the area. Many parents teach their children to respect and trust a person in the policeuniform. Police academy recruits relish the day when they may finally wear their official police uniforms.What is so special about a uniform which is often made of cheap polyester and is usually hot anduncomfortable to wear?The crisp uniform of the police officer conveys power and authority. When a police officer puts on his orher uniform the officer is perceived in a very different way by the public. He or she is viewed asembodying each persons stereotypes about all police officers. Research has suggested that clothing hasa powerful impact on bow people are perceived, and this goes for the police officer as well. The uniformof a police officer has been found to have a profound psychological impact on those who view it.Research has also suggested that even slight alterations to the style of the uniform will change howcitizens will perceive the officer.The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem policeforce, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first policeofficers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The colorblue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at thetime. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845.Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quicklyfollowed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption ofthe dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.To this day, the majority of police uniforms in. the United States continue to have a paramilitaryappearance and are generally of a dark color. Darker colors may have been preferred for their case incleaning and their ability to help conceal the wearer in tactical situations. Dark colors help cover up stainsand keep the officer from being easily spotted by lawbreakers, especially at night. However, why do mostpolice agencies insist on dressing patrol officers in uniforms? Is this simply because of tradition? Is it onlyfor the ease of identification by citizens? Maybe it is because the uniform actually psychologicallyinfluences how officers are perceived by the public.The Social Significance of ClothingWhen a person encounters a stranger, the person seeks clues from the strangers appearance which canreveal things about the stranger. One powerful clue to a persons background is clothing. Clothing servesas a mental shortcut to identifying a persons sex, status, group membership, legitimacy, authority, andoccupation. Clothing and physical appearance are very important in the initial development of socialrelationships. Studies have revealed that physical appearance, including clothing, is the factor most oftenused in developing a first impression of someone. Clothing has been found to have an even greater effecton making first impressions than does personality.In early social interactions, clothing has a significant psychological influence on peoples perceptions.Personnel administrators who were asked to rate the competency of similar female job applicantsconsistently rated the women in conservative, slightly-masculine attire as the most competent. In anotherstudy, both high school students and teachers were asked to rate, pictures of female athletes, some ofwhom were in uniform and the others in casual street clothes, All of the athletes were perceived as being2
  • 3. more professional, possessing higher ability, and having more team spirit when viewed in uniform. Bothstudents and teachers, have also rated photos of students in private school-type uniforms as havinghigher scholastic ability.The uniform worn by a police officer also elicits stereotypes about that human beings status, authority,attitudes, and motivations, The police uniform serves to identify a person as one vested with the powersof the state to arrest and use force. The uniform also serves to establish order and conformity within theranks of those who wear it by suppressing individuality. The psychological and physical impact of thepolice uniform should not be underestimated. Depending on the background of the citizen, the policeuniform can elicit emotions ranging from pride and respect, to fear and anger.The Power of the Police UniformResearch has supported these suggestions about the police uniforms power and authority. In one studypeople who were asked to rank order 25 different occupational uniforms by several categories of feelings.The test subjects consistently ranked the police uniform as the one most likely to induce feelings ofsafety. In another experiment, models were consistently rated as more competent, reliable, intelligent,and helpful when pictured in a police uniform than they were in casual street clothes. Drivers were alsofound to commit far fewer turn violations at an intersection if a person wearing a police-style uniform wasstanding on the sidewalk near the comer. This occurred even though the uniform was not that of a realpolice department in the area and had no badge or weapons. One interesting experiment to test thepower of the police uniform was conducted by psychologist Dr. Leonard Bickman. Pedestrians on a citystreet were approached at random and ordered by a research assistant to either pick tip a paper bag,give a dime to another person, or step back from a bus stop. The research assistant was alternatelydressed in casual street clothes, a milkman uniform, or a grey, police-style uniform bearing a badge butlacking weapons. Only the police-style uniform resulted in a high rate of cooperation from citizens.Obedience to the police-style uniform usually continued even after the research assistant quickly walkedaway and did not watch to ensure compliance.
  • 4. South Korea shuts down for the all-or-nothing Korean SATBy Bryan Kay, Correspondent / November 10, 2011Some 80 percent of Koreas high school students go on to further education. And toensure students have the best chance, one day every year Korea changes its planeschedules, redirects traffic, and holds its breath.For the nearly 700,000 high schoolers on their way out of school taking the test this morning, this willdetermine what university they will go to (if any), their salary, and their future fate.Such is the all-or-nothing emphasis pinned on gaining entry to one of a handful of the top highereducation institutions in the country – anchored in the so-called SKY (Seoul National, Korea andYonsei universities) trinity – that the entire Korean education system is geared toward success onthis single day of the year.Beyond college, a place at one of the top colleges is seen as a golden ticket to the ultimate prize of ajob at one of the countrys top conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG.But the pressure-laden path to the test, say critics, is one littered with some of South Koreas mostglaring social ills. Though its education system is held up as a model around the world, with about 80percent of high school students going on to college, South Korea harbors one of the worlds mostastronomical levels of private education costs forked out by parents intent on ensuring their childrenget ahead. And some have linked the test to some of the increasing number of teen suicides in thecountry.One national newspaper columnist noted that this surge for a limited number of places at so fewuniversities has also been linked to a spike in real estates prices in school districts with rumors ofhistorically high pass rates.The winds of change have been set in motion, however. President Lee Myung-bak wants companiesto focus energies on recruiting high school graduates from vocational-focused places of learning in abid to curb a rising youth unemployment rate.South Koreas high university graduate rate leads to a bottleneck in the job market, pitting too manyapplicants in competition for a much smaller number of jobs. That, say experts, helps explain thecountrys high youth unemployment rate.Whether Koreans will make the switch and value vocational educations, remains to be seen. Fornow, the exams are a "Korean rite of passage." Students are scheduled to find out what life holds instore for them on Nov. 30.3
  • 5. The U.S.-Korea EmbraceCouncil on Foreign RelationsInterviewee: Scott A. Snyder, Senior Fellow for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea PolicyInterviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting EditorThe United States and South Korea look to reaffirm their special security and economic alliance duringPresident Park Geun-hyes first state visit to Washington this week. Scott A. Snyder, CFRs top Koreaexpert, says, "Both sides are eager to share with each other messages of assurance, given the tensionswith North Korea." On economic affairs, he notes that while "there have been no real hiccups so far"regarding the now one-year-old U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, "a potential issue" will be whetherSeoul may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations (PDF), a proposed regional free-trade pactthat includes the U.S and eleven other nations.Recently elected president Park Geun-hye of South Korea is set to meet President Obamatomorrow at the White House, and will later speak to a joint session of Congress. What doyou expect from this high-level visit?Its really a "getting to know you" meeting for both President Obama and President Park in the contextof the long-standing close relationship between the United States and South Korea. Under the currentcircumstances, both sides are eager to share with each other messages of assurance, given the tensionswith North Korea. The United States is going to want to assure Seoul of its commitment to South Koreassecurity, and I think President Park will want to provide an assurance to the United States that she is astable and capable crisis manager.On the economic situation: For a while, there were some tensions in the U.S.-South Koreanrelationship over trade issues. Have they been resolved?We just celebrated the one-year anniversary of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement, and I think it hasbeen going fine. Theres some marginal increase in trade between the United States and South Korea,and there have been no real hiccups so far. Im sure both sides will want to talk further aboutimplementation, but there are no real outstanding bilateral trade issues right now. There will be apotential issue relating to whether South Korea might join multilateral negotiations of the Trans-PacificPartnership (TPP).Right now, there are about twelve different countries involved; Japan has just indicatedits desire to beincluded.The TPP is a stepping stone to a high-standard, free trade arrangement in Asia. Its standards-based, sonot everybody has opted to join, but its really the main prong of U.S. economic engagement with theAsian region.4
  • 6. North Korea: secrets and liesBy Barbara Demick telegraph.co.ukA tale of illicit romance, cruel famine and dramatic escape from North Korea, the countrythat fell out of the developed world.If you look at satellite photographs of the Far East by night, youll see a large splotch curiouslylacking in light. This area of darkness is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.Next to this mysterious black hole, South Korea, Japan and China fairly gleam with prosperity. Evenfrom hundreds of miles above, the billboards, the headlights and streetlights, the neon of the fastfood chains appear as tiny white dots signifying people going about their business as 21st-centuryenergy consumers. Then, in the middle of it all, an expanse of blackness nearly as large as England.It is baffling how a nation of 23 million people can appear as vacant as the oceans. North Korea issimply a blank.North Korea faded to black in the early 1990s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which hadpropped up its old Communist ally with cheap fuel oil, North Koreas creakily inefficient economycollapsed. Power stations rusted into ruin. The lights went out. Even in parts of the showcase capitalof Pyongyang, you can stroll down the middle of a main street at night without being able to see thebuildings on either side.North Korea is not an undeveloped country; it is a country that has fallen out of the developed world.You can see the evidence of what has been lost dangling overhead alongside any major road – theskeletal wires of the rusted electrical grid that once covered the entire country.North Koreans beyond middle age remember well when they had more electricity (and for thatmatter food) than their pro-American cousins in South Korea, and that compounds the indignity ofspending their nights sitting in the dark. In the 1990s the United States offered to help North Koreawith its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons programme. But the deal fell apart after theBush administration accused the North Koreans of reneging on their promises. North Koreanscomplain bitterly about the darkness, which they still blame on the US sanctions.But the dark has advantages of its own. Especially if you are a teenager dating somebody you cantbe seen with. When adults go to bed, sometimes as early as 7pm in winter, it is easy enough to slipout of the house. The darkness confers measures of privacy and freedom as hard to come by inNorth Korea as electricity.I met many North Koreans who told me how much they learnt to love the darkness, but it was thestory of one teenage girl and her boyfriend that impressed me most. She was 12 years old when shemet a young man three years older from a neighbouring town. Her family was low-ranking in thebyzantine system of social controls in place in North Korea. To be seen in public together woulddamage the boys career prospects as well as her reputation as a virtuous young woman. So theirdates consisted entirely of long walks in the dark. There was nothing else to do anyway; by the timethey started dating in earnest in the early 1990s, none of the restaurants or cinemas was operatingbecause of the lack of power.They would meet after dinner. The girl had instructed her boyfriend not to knock on the front doorand risk questions from her family. The boy found a spot behind a wall where nobody would noticehim as the light seeped out of the day. He would wait hours for her, maybe two or three. It didntmatter. The cadence of life is slower in North Korea. Nobody owned a watch.The girl would emerge just as soon as she could extricate herself. At first, they would walk in silence,then their voices would gradually rise to whispers and then to normal conversational levels as theyleft the village and relaxed into the night. They maintained an arms-length distance from each otheruntil they were sure they wouldnt be spotted, talking about their families, their classmates, booksthey had read – whatever the topic, it was endlessly fascinating. Years later, when I asked the girlabout the happiest memories of her life, she told me of those nights.5
  • 7. By the time I met her, in 2004, she was a woman of 31. Mi-ran (not her real name) had defected sixyears earlier and was living in South Korea. I was writing an article about defectors and had askedMi-ran to lunch in order to learn more about North Koreas school system. In the years before herdefection, she had worked as a kindergarten teacher in a mining town. It was a serious conversation,at times grim. The food on our table went uneaten as she described watching her five- and-six-year-old pupils die of starvation. As her students were dying, she was supposed to teach them that theywere blessed to be North Korean.There was something about her self-possession and candour that allowed me to ask more personalquestions. Did she have a boyfriend there?Its funny you ask, she said. I had a dream about him the other night. Mi-ran laughed. It took usthree years to hold hands. Another six to kiss. I would never have dreamt of doing anything more. Atthe time I left North Korea, I was 26 years old and a schoolteacher, but I didnt know how babieswere conceived.Mi-ran admitted that she frequently thought about her first love and felt some pangs of remorse overthe way she left. Jun-sang had been her best friend, the person in whom she confided her dreamsand the secrets of her family. But she had none the less withheld from him the biggest secret of herlife. She never told him how disgusted she was with North Korea, how she didnt believe thepropaganda she passed on to her pupils. Above all, she never told him that her family was hatchinga plan to defect. Not that she didnt trust him, but you could never be too careful.Neighbours denounced neighbours, friends denounced friends. If anybody in the secret police hadlearnt of their plans, her entire family would have been carted away to a labour camp in themountains.I couldnt risk it, she told me. I couldnt even say goodbye.Mi-ran and Jun-sang lived on the outskirts of Chongjin, one of the industrial cities in the northeast ofthe peninsula, not far from the border with Russia. The North Korean landscape is strikingly beautifulin places, but somehow devoid of colour. The houses are simple, utilitarian and monochromatic.Most of the housing stock was built in the 1960s and 1970s from cement block and limestone, doledout to people based on their job and rank. In the countryside, people typically live in single-storeybuildings called harmonicas, rows of one-room homes, stuck together like the little boxes that makeup the chambers of a harmonica.In 1984 George Orwell wrote of a world where the only colour to be found was in the propagandaposters. Such is the case in North Korea. Images of Kim Il-sung are depicted in vivid colours. Raysof yellow and orange emanate from his face: he is the sun. The red letters leap out of the greylandscape with urgency: long live kimil-sung. we will do as the party tells us. we have nothing toenvy in the world.Until her early teens, Mi-ran had no reason not to believe the signs. Her father was a mine worker.Her family was poor, but so was everyone they knew. Since all outside publications, films andbroadcasts were banned, Mi-ran assumed that nowhere else in the world were people better off, andthat most probably fared far worse. She heard many, many times on the radio and television thatSouth Koreans were miserable, that Chinas diluted brand of Communism was less successful thanthat brought by Kim Il-sung and that millions of Chinese were going hungry. All in all, Mi-ran felt shewas quite lucky to have been born in North Korea under the loving care of the fatherly leader.In fact, the village where Mi-ran grew up was not such a bad place in the 1970s and 1980s. It was atypical North Korean village of about 1,000 people, but its location was fortuitous. The East Sea (theSea of Japan) was only six miles away, so locals could occasionally eat fresh fish and crab. Thevillage lay just beyond the smokestacks of Chongjin and so had the advantages of proximity to thecity as well as open space on which to grow vegetables.Mi-Rans father, Tae-woo, had grown up in South Chungchong province in South Korea. He was 18when the Communists invaded in 1950, and he had no choice but to enlist. The South Koreans wereill-prepared and needed all the able-bodied men they could get. He was captured as a prisoner ofwar, and his life as a South Korean was effectively over.After the armistice, there was a prisoner exchange, but thousands more were never sent home,among them Tae-woo, who was sent to an iron-ore mine in Musan, a gritty town on the North
  • 8. Korean side of the Chinese border. Here he met and married Mi-rans mother, and Tae-woo quicklyassimilated into North Korean life. It was easy enough for him to blend in. Soon after his marriage,Tae-woo and his new bride were transferred to another mine near Chongjin where he knew nobody.There was no reason for anyone to suspect anything unusual in his background, but it was in thepeculiar nature of North Korea that somebody always did know.After the war, Kim Il-sung made it his first order of business to weed out foe from friend. He disposedof many of his comrades in arms. They had been invaluable during the war; now that they hadserved their purpose they could be discarded. Kim Il-sung then turned his attention to ordinarypeople. In 1958 he ordered up an elaborate project to classify all North Koreans by their politicalreliability. Each person was put through eight background checks. Your songbun, as the rating wascalled, took into account the backgrounds of your parents, grandparents and even second cousins.As a former South Korean soldier, Tae-woos ranking was towards the bottom of the heap. NorthKoreans of the lower ranks were banned from living in Pyongyang or the nicer patches ofcountryside towards the south where the soil was more fertile and the weather warmer. Tae-woocouldnt dream of joining the Workers Party, which, like the Communist Party in China and theSoviet Union, controlled the plum jobs.People of his rank would be closely watched by their neighbours. It was almost impossible for aNorth Korean of low rank to improve his status. Whatever your original stain, it was permanent andimmutable. And family status was hereditary. The sins of the father were the sins of the children andthe grandchildren. The North Koreans called these peoplebeulsun – tainted blood, or impure.Mi-ran and her four siblings would carry that taint in their blood. Her parents thought it best if theysaid nothing at all to the children about their fathers roots. What was the point in burdening themwith the knowledge that they would be barred from the best schools and the best jobs, that their liveswould soon reach a dead end? Why would they bother to study, to practise their musical instrumentsor compete in sports?As the children approached adolescence, the obstacles presented by their fathers backgroundbegan to loom larger. Those not admitted to further education are assigned to a work unit, a factory,a coalmine, or the like. But Mi-rans siblings were confident they would be among those chosen tofurther their education. They were smart, good-looking, athletic, well-liked by teachers and peers.Had they been less talented, rejection might have gone down more easily.It was Mi-rans brother who finally forced the truth to the surface. Sok-ju had spent months crammingfor an exam to win admission to the teachers college. He knew every answer perfectly. When hewas told he had failed, he angrily confronted the judges to demand an explanation.The truth was devastating. The children had been thoroughly inculcated in the North Korean versionof history. The Americans were the incarnation of evil and the South Koreans their pathetic lackeys.To learn that their own father was a South Korean who had fought with the Yankees was too muchto bear. Sok-ju got drunk for the first time in his life. He ran away from home. He stayed at a friendshouse for two weeks until the friend convinced him to return. Sok-Ju knew, like any other Koreanboy, that he had to revere his father. He went home and fell to his knees, begging for forgiveness. Itwas the first time he saw his father cry.Mi-ran was in high school when she first noticed that city people were taking trips to the countrysideto scavenge for food. When she bicycled into Chongjin, she would see them, looking like beggarswith their burlap sacks, heading toward the orchards that lined both sides of the road. Some wouldeven come as far as the cornfields that stretched for miles south from her village towards the sea.Where Mi-ran lived, the narrow strips between the harmonica houses were painstakingly cultivatedwith red peppers, radishes, cabbages and even tobacco, because it was cheaper to roll your ownthan to buy cigarettes, and virtually all the men smoked. People whose roofs were flat would put potsup there to grow more vegetables. These private agricultural efforts were small enough that theydidnt raise the ire of the Communist authorities. At least in the beginning, before the food shortagegrew into a famine, they staved off hunger.Initially, the relationship between Mi-Ran and Jun-sang took on a 19th-century epistolatory quality.They stayed in touch by letter. In 1991 few North Koreans had ever used a telephone. You had to goto a post office to make a phone call. But even writing a letter was not a simple undertaking. Writing-
  • 9. paper was scarce. People would write in the margins of newspapers. The paper in the state storeswas made of corn husk and would crumble easily. And the distance from Pyongyang to Chongjinwas only 250 miles, but letters took up to a month to be delivered.In Pyongyang, Jun-sang could buy proper paper. He owned a ballpoint pen. His letters ran on forpages, long and eloquent. Their correspondence gradually evolved from stilted formalities to full-blown romance. He quoted to her from the novels he read. He wrote love poems.Jun-sangs experiences in Pyongyang gave Mi-ran a glimpse into a remote world of privilege. At thesame time, it was hard to listen without a trace of jealousy. She was in her final year of high schooland she feared it would be the end of her education. Jun-sang sensed her depression and probedmore deeply until at last she told him how she felt. Things can change, Jun-sang wrote to her. Ifyou want more in life, you must believe in yourself and you can achieve your dreams.Mi-ran would later credit Jun-sangs words of encouragement with changing her life. Once a goodstudent, she had let her grades drop. She hit the books. If she didnt make it to college, she wouldnthave herself to blame.To Mi-rans great surprise, she was accepted into a teachers college. In autumn 1991 she movedout of her parents house and into the college dormitory. But as winter temperatures plungedChongjin into a deep freeze, she realised why it was that the school had been able to give her aplace. The dormitories had no heating. Mi-ran went to sleep each night in her coat, heavy socks andmittens with a towel draped over her head. When she woke up, the towel would be crusted with frostfrom the moisture of her breath. In the bathroom, where the girls washed their menstrual rags(nobody had sanitary napkins), it was so cold that the rags would freeze solid within minutes of beinghung up to dry.By the time Mi-ran graduated, in 1994, she was eager to move back home with her parents, as fooddistribution in Chongjin had stopped entirely. She requested a teaching assignment close to homeand was fortunate to be sent to a kindergarten near the mines where her father had worked. Thekindergarten was housed in a single-storey concrete building surrounded by an iron fence withcolourfully painted sunflowers that formed an archway over the entrance with the slogan we arehappy. The classrooms were standard issue with matching father-and-son portraits of Kim Il-sungand Kim Jong-il presiding above the blackboard. There was a large bookcase with only a few books,barely legible because they had been photocopied long ago from the originals.The village children were visibly poorer than their city counterparts, and came to school in a motleyassortment of hand-me-downs, often swathed in many layers since there was little heating in theschool. As Mi-ran helped them off with their outerwear, she peeled layer after layer until the tinybody inside was revealed. When she held their hands in her own, their baby fingers squeezed intofists as tiny as walnuts. These children, five and six-year-olds, looked to her no bigger than threeand four-year-olds. Mi-ran wondered if some of the children were coming to school mainly for thefree lunch the cafeteria served, a thin soup made of salt and dry leaves.Still, she approached her new job with enthusiasm. To be a teacher, a member of the educated andrespectable class, was a big step up for the daughter of a miner. She couldnt wait to get up in themorning and put on the crisp white blouse that she kept pressed under her bed mat at night.The school day started at 8am. Mi-ran put on her perkiest smile to greet the children as they filedinto the classroom. As soon as she got them into their assigned seats, she brought out heraccordion. All teachers were required to play the accordion – it was often called the peoplesinstrument since it was portable enough to carry along on a day of voluntary hard labour in thefields. In the classroom teachers sang, We Have Nothing to Envy in the World, which had asingsongy tune as familiar to North Korean children as Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.This is an edited extract from Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick(Granta). To order for £12.99 plus £1.25 p&p, call Telegraph Books on 0844-871 1515 orvisit books.telegraph.co.uk
  • 10. Uniform and Dress Codecentralhigh.centralcss.orgCentral Community School District Uniform and Dress Code for Central High SchoolThe standard uniform includes the following:Shirts1. Shirts will be maroon in color. Shirts will have a collar and short sleeves. Shirts will be plain, withno pockets, writing, emblems, or designs of any kind except a standard CHS logo. The standard CHSlogo ,as displayed, is optional. The logo will consist of white, three-quarter inch block letters, CHSmonogrammed on the left side. The Power Cat logo is also an exceptable logo. No other logos will beused. Only plain white T-shirts will be worn underneath these shirts and will not extend past sleevelength.2. In addition to maroon shirt, seniors may wear a white shirt and may free-dress every Friday.3. Shirts will be tucked in and must be long enough to stay tucked when the arms are raised above thehead. The style will be pullover with two, three, or four buttons at the top. Shirts will not beexcessively worn, faded, or frayed and will not have holes or cuts.Slacks/Skirts1. Slacks and skirts will be khaki in color and of the specified shade. The shade is khaki. They will notbe rolled at either the waist or the cuff.2. Slacks are uniform. There should be no designer labels on slacks. Slacks will have belt loops andwill be worn with a belt. The belt will be brown, black, khaki or white and will be no wider than oneinch. Slacks will have two pockets in front and two in back. “Cargo” style pants are not acceptable.Slacks will have finished bottoms. Cuffs are acceptable. There will be no flared or bell-bottoms. Theywill not have holes, cuts, or be frayed. Slacks must be worn at the waist as designed. No jeans, bikeshorts, stretch pants, or sweatpants will be worn. NO CAPRI PANTS WILL BE WORN.3. Skirts are acceptable if loose fitting and worn no higher than the top of the knee.4. Knee length shorts (that meet the criteria of "Slacks" above) are acceptable.Exceptions: JROTC uniforms, when directed to be worn by the Senior Army Instructor, are allowedduring regular school hours.Also, approved school organization will be allowed to wear school approved non-uniform shirts on6
  • 11. special occasions. (The occasions will be approved by the Principal or his designee.) The rest of theuniform policy and dress code would remain in effect of these days. For example, shirts wouldcontinue to be tucked in and ID cards, where applicable, worn even though the shirt would be non-uniform.Dress Code1. Caps, hats or head coverings are NOT to be worn during the school day, or inside the school day, orinside the school building. DO NOT BRING CAPS OR HATS ON CAMPUS DURING SCHOOL TIME.2. Male students are not to wear earrings (or straws to preserve the pierced hole). Girls are allowedto wear two pairs of earrings. Body piercing is NOT allowed. Only simple jewelry may be worn.3. Ribbons or bowsmust be marron, white, or grey.4. Rollers, curlers, picks, rakes, forks, or combs in hair are prohibited.5. Unnatural coloring of hair or cutting of symbols or designs in hair is not permitted.6. Beards and goatees are NOT allowed. Sideburns (no longer than the bottom of the ear) andmustaches are allowed and must be neat and well trimmed.7. Sunglasses are not to be worn on school grounds unless prescribed for medical purposes andverified with a doctor’s note, which must be presented to an administrator for approval.8. Pictures or writing on book sacks, gym bags, jackets, etc. of and offensive, derogatory or obscenenature is prohibited at school (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, drugs, weapons, blood, skulls, etc.).STUDENTS WHOSE CLOTHING OR GROOMING IS INAPPROPRIATE IN THE OPINION OF THEADMINISTRATION WILL BE SENT HOME TO MAKE THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT. UNEXCUSEDABSENCES WILL BE GIVEN WHEN STUDENTS ARE SENT HOME TO TAKE CARE OF ANY OF THE ABOVEPOLICES. STUDENTS WHO VIOLATE SET DRESS AND GROOMING POLICIES SHALL ALSO BE SUBJECTTO DISCIPLINARY ACTION. (TOR OR SUSPENSION)
  • 12. South Korean school uniformFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAlmost all South Korean secondary students wear a uniform called Gyobok (Hangul: 교복; Hanja: 校服). The majority of elementary schools except some private elementary schools do not have uniforms;however, the uniform is strictly monitored from the start of middle school and up. Based on Western-style uniforms, the South Korean uniform usually consists of a shirt, blazer and tie, with skirts for girlsand long grey trousers for boys. More recently, the uniform is often worn by celebrities who targetthe younger, teen audience to sell entertainment products. The school uniform and school setting isfrequently used as a venue for romance. As a result, the uniform has become something akin to anexpression of fashion amongst students.[edit]HistoryThe very first uniforms in Korea were made in 1886, for the first Western-style school. They wereoriginally red uniforms but were later changed to a black skirt and white blouse.[1]Between 1920 and1945, Japanesecolonists in Korea expanded the use of school uniforms. During those years, theuniform became trousers and a blouse for girls and a khaki uniform for boys.[2][edit]Components of the UniformA typical Korean school uniform for a boy usually includes a jacket, a long-sleeved collared white shirt,a tie, dress trousers, and outerwear for the Winter season. A girls Korean school uniform generallyconsists of, a bow, a collared white shirt with sleeves, a vest, a pleated skirt and outerwear for thewinter, and white socks. Nail polish and make-up were generally not allowed, until many municipaleducation departments enacted Students rights acts which includes freedom of uniform andfreedom of hair style.[3][4]7
  • 13. School UniformsBy studymode, February 2002A safe and structured learning environment is the first requirement of a good school. Children who feelsafe and secure will better learn basic American values. In return they will learn the basis of goodcitizenship and become better students. In response to growing levels of violence in our schools, manyparents, teachers, and school officials have been forced to look toward school uniforms as onepotentially positive way to reduce discipline problems and increase school safety.It has been observed that the adoption of school uniform policies can promote school safety, improvediscipline, and enhance the learning environment. The potential benefits of school uniforms includedecreasing violence and theft. Some instances involving designer clothing and expensive sneakers haveeven led to life-threatening situations among students. Uniforms would also prevent gang membersfrom wearing gang colors and insignia at school. Uniforms would also teach students discipline and helpthem resist peer pressure. Uniforms would also help students concentrate on their schoolwork andwould help school officials detect intruders who come unwelcome into the school. As a result, manylocal communities are deciding to adopt school uniform policies as part of an overall program toimprove school safety and discipline.8
  • 14. The Benefits Of School UniformsStudentvoice.co.uk Posted by Rachel Roberts on 8 Aug 2012For families with children in school environments, the issue of whether or not school uniformsare appropriate or beneficial is always a prevalent one. Just about everyone you ask has arelatively strong opinion regarding whether or not children should wear uniforms, and there arecertainly some strong arguments for either side of the debate. Typically, the main argumentagainst school uniforms tends to be that they make it more difficult for students to express theirindividuality, which could conceivably be a bit harmful to personal development. However, thisis based more in speculation than fact, and when you consider several other points, it is clearthat there are actually several potential benefits to school uniforms. Here are a few specificbenefits to keep in mind.Purchasing school uniforms can save a great deal of time and effort shopping. If you are tryingto fill out your childs wardrobe with individually picked pieces of clothing, you may find yourselfshopping for a whole week before school starts. However, if you simply have to pick up uniformsyou may just need to drop by the school or a designated store like Marks & Spencer to pickthem up.Similarly, buying school uniforms can be a great deal cheaper for parents than assemblingindividual wardrobes. One argument against uniforms tends to be that they make it moredifficult for families to rely on hand-me-downs from older siblings, but when you think about itsome of this difference is made up in the simplicity of uniforms. Kids with the freedom to wearwhatever they want often want expensive new styles, but with uniforms you can buy a cheaperwardrobe without worrying about fashion.Style is actually one of the biggest arguments in favour of school uniforms. Nobody is under theimpression that school uniforms always represent the height of fashion, but in many cases thatsexactly the point. If kids at school dress however they wish, then those without the financialmeans to keep up with the latest styles, or those who simply dont have strong senses of fashion,can often stand out in a negative way. School uniforms help schools to avoid these issuesentirely, and eliminate fashion-based judgments.Finally, there is your childs focus to consider. There comes a point in life at which fashion is, tosome extent, important those who dress well tend to make better impressions, etc. However,when your children are young and in school, you likely want to do your best to discourage vanityand encourage focus on academics and social development. School uniforms take style andfashion considerations completely out of the picture and allow your kids to focus completely onwhat they should be learning in school, but educationally and socially.9
  • 15. Why Do We Make Our Kids Wear Uniforms?http://www.optionality.net/mag/oct98a.htmlTraining?The training argument says that when you are employed, you are likely to have to wear a uniform. Isthis true? What are the odds that children will wear a uniform later in life? Typically, the occupationswhere 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, theydont wear uniforms! Well-paid work tends to reject uniformity, and for good reason, the demands ofthe future include qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, individuality, originality, a spontaneouspersonality, being a self-starter, taking initiatives, being able to cope with change, etc. And even thepeople who do wear a uniform later in life are unlikely to accept such a silly costume as a schooluniform. Only for prostitutes 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 toget used to wearing a uniform, just in the unfortunate case that they will end up in such a job later inlife? If we turn around the same logic, students who are used to wearing uniforms would beinsufficiently prepared for plain-clothed work, if they did not wear plain clothes at school all the time.Similarly, students would not be able to deal with people who didnt wear uniforms. It just doesnt makesense.There is one deeper argument. It goes like this: students waering uniforms will be accustomed to takinga servile attitude which will help them find work later in life. Of course, the very opposite could beargued with more reason. Does success in future demand a servile attitude? Or is it more helpful to becreative, have an spontaneous and open personality, an inquisitive mind, be a self-starter who talksthings over, who has an independent mind searching for new ideas to make things work?See? Examine an argument that supposedly favored school uniforms more closely, and it either doesntmake sense or it turns into an argument against school uniforms. Thats why schools who seek tointroduce uniforms typcially prefer to do so without any debate on the issue! Anyway, lets continuewith the next argument.Equity?The equity argument goes like this: If children wear uniforms, they do not notice differences betweenchildren from rich and from poor families. This equity argument is often put forward by State Schools.The reason for this may be that it is a purely socialist argument and it may be rejected for this reasonalone. In a democratic country, school should not indoctrinate children with a specific political ideology,especially not a government-funded school. Interestingly, private schools typically are even morefanatical about uniforms, but they are less inclined to use the equity argument.Anyway, even as a socialist argument, it does not make much sense. School uniforms may make allstudents look alike. But why do the teachers not wear the same uniforms? Clearly, school does not likeany confusion as to who is the teacher and who is the student. The master-slave relationship that is soobviously present at school is deliberately magnified by uniforms that emphasize this difference. The10
  • 16. teacher is allowed to dress casually, while the student has to wear silly clothes intended to make thestudent look stupid.Furthermore, there are often different uniforms for those in higher grades than for those in lowergrades, just like in the military a superior officer wears a less silly hat. This creates class differences.Some will argue that this merely reflects existing differences. But the point is that if this were accurate,it constituted an argument against uniformity. Moreover, school itself creates class differences. Class is atrademark, if not an invention of school. Children are grouped together in classes according to age andoften according to gender and to perceived academic performance. Because parents want their childrento mix with children of their own class, they carefully select the neighborhood where they are going tolive. Houses close to private schools are often substantially more expensive than similar houses close tostate schools. On the street, children are identified by their uniform. Oh, you come from that poorschool, you dummy! is an example of what children say to each other when they look at each othersuniform. And even in the classroom, uniforms only accentuate differences in length, hair color and otherphysical characteristics. Children consequently judge each other by their physical appearances. One canargue whether it were better if children judged each other by their clothes instead.Ease and Cost?From a financial point of view, the socialist argument does not make sense either. School uniforms areexpensive, by their nature they are produced in limited numbers, they have to be special. Furthermore,school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, because if they were made of pure cotton, they wouldfade after a few washings and there would be color differences between the uniforms of various pupils,which goes against the very idea of uniformity. Therefore, school uniforms are far more expensive thanthe cheap cotton clothing people normally like to wear. The situation is also prone to exploitation byunfair trade practices, unhealthy schemes, favoratism and cronyism, e.g. deals in which secret bribes arepaid for the privilege of exclusively and locally producing and selling such school uniforms. One paysthe price for not being able to choose the often cheap imports from countries such as China and India.Some parents argue that because of school uniforms, they do not have to buy many clothes for theirchildren, which saves them time and money. But most children will have plain clothes next to theirschool uniform. The idea of a school uniform is that students wear the uniform at school, but do notwear the uniform, say, at a disco or other events outside school. This effectively means that children willneed a double set of clothing.The ease argument says that school uniforms make it easier for students to choose what they are towear at school. But is it really a virtue of the school uniform that the choice is made so easy? It wouldbe just as easy for children to decide what to wear, if they only had, say, jeans and T-shirts in theircupboards. This kind of choice has nothing to do with wearing uniforms. If there are only jeans and T-shirts in the cupboard, the child will have to wear jeans and T-shirts. The choice is easy, because there isno alternative. If there were only a ski-outfit in the cupboard, the child had to wear the ski-outfit andchoices were equally easy. The point is that the choice is not so much made easy by virtue ofuniformity, no, the choice is easy because there is no choice. If the kid-next-door happens to wear thesame clothes, say jeans, that didnt make the choice any easier for either of the children. One only haschoice if there is something to choose from. The real question is if choice is good for children. Takingaway childrens right to choose what to wear does not make live any easier, it just makes childrenaccustomed to conformity, to following orders and walking in line without thinking, without making a
  • 17. choice. This creates a huge amount of psychological problems later in life, it reduces the opportunity toget good work, it reduces the overall quality of life, in some respects it is a form of child abuse tosystematically deny children choice.As mentioned before, school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, as this keeps its color better.Apart from being more expensive, polycotton is also very hot, which is a problem in hot climates. Specialsun-protective clothing is often too expensive, or cannot stand the frequent washing necessary as thekids have to wear the same clothing every day. Uniforms tend to be uncomfortable - by nature auniform is a straightjacket that has been compromised in many ways in order to fit everybody. Uniformsare far from easy in many respects.The cost argument is obviously a false argument. School uniforms do not keep the cost of clothingdown, because quite obviously all students also need plain clothes next to their uniform. Whencompared to T-shirts and jeans, the school uniform is unlikely to be the cheap, comfortable, easy to use.Private schools are even less likely to push the cost argument, they deliberately choose for a ratherexpensive outfit as a way to distinguish the students from poorer schools. Obviously, the costargument is inconsistent with the pride argument that wants students to look well presented even ifthis comes at an extra cost. The very point of uniforms is that it is something that not everyone wears,and this exclusivity obviously comes at a cost.Pride?The pride argument goes like this: if students dress lousy, the school as a whole gets a bad name, whichdiminishes the opportunity for all students to get a good job. Of course, this is just an argument againstdirty or otherwise less attractive clothes. Teachers may argue that school uniforms set a clear standardof what the students are to wear, but school uniforms may just as well get dirty as any other clothes andschool uniforms may just as well tear apart after a fight or a fall. Having school uniforms does nonecessarily make it easier to see whether the clothes are dirty or ragged. Uniformity in itself is nothingto be proud about. Note that students are not supposed to wear the uniforms at discos or other out-of-school events. If the students were really supposed to be proud about their school, why are they onlysupposed to wear the uniform at school? Note also that universities rarely demand students to wearuniforms, yet few seem to be worried that this will make the students unemployable.Safety?The safety argument is that school uniforms make it more difficult for unwelcome outsiders to infiltratethe school grounds. But is safety the real reason behind compulsory school uniforms? State schools aretypically huge with large numbers of teachers and other staff. Teachers are frequently ill or otherwiseabsent, requiring relief-teachers to step in. The larger the school, the more difficult it is to know allindividual teachers and maintenance staff who might wonder down through the buildings. Students willnot be surprised to see an unfamiliar plain-clothed grown-up person on the school-grounds. They willnot even be surprised if such a person seems lost. If safety really was an important issue, then why areteachers, maintenance staff and visiting parents not required to similarly wear the school uniform?Many people come and leave the school grounds by car every day. Cars can often be driven right intothe middle of the school grounds, while it is virtually impossible to spot whether the occupants arewearing uniforms or not. School uniforms in fact make it very easy for someone with bad intentions to
  • 18. sneak in, disguised as a legitimate school student. Typically, anyone can buy second-hand uniforms atthe school or at nearby shops.
  • 19. Debate.com “Should Students Wear Uniforms?52% Say Yes 48% Say NoYes, it can help with the bullying problem. It canhelp the bullying problem because kids get pickedon for their clothes all the time, so if all the kidshad on the same clothes that problem would beimproved dramatically. Also, if kids wear regularclothes, they basically have no restriction in howthey dress which leads to promiscuity. Promiscuitycan distract other students from paying attentionin school and maybe make them get lower grades.Thats why uniforms should be worn at all times.Posted by: bengjsuBullying and gangs. With having uniforms you donot have the discrimination of the different groupsand how the dress effects the people and howthey act. Without the uniforms kids can start gangsand can start groups with the same sort of dressthey wear and while the uniform is restricting kidsfrom bullying it is also stooping the gangsPosted by: cbrownYes, for practicality and unity I find it so mucheasier in the mornings when I have somethingspecific to put on. It saves time and also money, asI buy far fewer clothes than I would otherwise.Having a uniform also closes the gap between thedifferent types of people, and I believe this is agood thing.Posted by: Duke SmithEveryone should have the same right toindividuality. Kids shouldnt have to wearuniforms. All it does is make school a dull andlifeless place that no one wants to be in. Studentsshould be able to express their feelings andemotions by wearing regular clothes. Im a kidmyself, and actually, I couldnt care less aboutthem.Posted by: anoymouseUniforms are wrong. You cant really be you whenyou wear uniforms. It takes your individualityaway. We need freedom- its America isnt it? Wehave to stick up for who we are, and how we dothat is through our clothes. Whether we arehappy, dark, or crazy, we show it, without evenhaving to say it, through clothes.Posted by: AnonymousNo nono. I do not think students should wearschool uniforms because kids express themselvesby what they wear and the colors they do, becausein other words its freedom of speech. This is a freecountry. Also some parents may not be able to paythe amount needed for the uniforms.Posted by: AnonymousNo, everyone has the right to freedom ofexpression. Kids shouldnt have to wear uniforms.All it does is make school a dull and lifeless placethat no one wants to be in. Students should beable to express their feelings and emotions bywearing regular clothes. Im a kid myself, andactually, I couldnt care less about them.Posted by: Anonymous11
  • 20. SCHOOL UNIFORMS REDUCE STUDENT ABSENCES, DISCIPLINARYPROBLEMSApril 5, 2010-Houston- Mike EmeryFewer schools are including "Best Dressed" as a category in their end-of-the- year student polls. As public schoolscontinue to adopt dress code policies, more students are unable to make individual fashion statements.A recent University of Houston study suggests that this might be a good thing as school uniforms can positively impactstudents grades, attendance and behavior.UH economics professor Scott Imberman and graduate student Elizabetta Gentile surveyed administrative data from 160public schools in a large urban school district. This data included student demographics, as well as academic, disciplinaryand attendance records that had been filed from 1993 - 2006.By applying econometric techniques - combining economic theory with statistics - Imberman and Gentile comparedstudents from schools that required uniforms to peers from non-uniformed institutions. They specifically focused onstudent outcomes that emerged once a school required uniforms. Their study is documented in the paper "Dressed forSuccess: Do School Uniforms Improve Student Behavior, Attendance and Achievement?"Their findings show bolstered attendance, academics and behavior in middle and high school students once their schoolsadopted uniforms. Imberman and Gentile noted that the biggest improvement was among female students."After uniforms were adopted, girls in middle school and high school missed one day less of school annually," Imbermansaid. "That sounds like a modest improvement, but in terms of educational interventions, it is challenging to motivate aprogression in this area. This is fairly substantial."They also found that once uniforms were mandated, the school district was more likely to retain its female students at allgrade levels."Often, parents withdraw their children from a school district due to dissatisfaction," Imberman said. "This data suggeststhat uniforms helped schools increase parental satisfaction and encouraged students not to leave for charter or privateschools."The quantitative nature of the study does not offer direct insight as to why uniforms produce such favorable results fromstudents. It does, however, point to the fact that students attendance, test scores and behavior consistently improvedfrom the time uniforms were introduced."The benefits increased over time," Imberman said. "The effects were smaller during the first year uniforms wereadopted but grew in subsequent years. We interpret this as indication that there may have been an adjustment period.12
  • 21. The uniforms might have taken some time to have an effect and become ingrained within the schools environments."
  • 22. What a North Face jacket means in South KoreaPuffy down outdoor jackets are increasingly becoming symbols of class division and targets of schoolviolenceBy Frances ChaAccording to a Korean blog post that made the rounds late last month, North Face jacke wearers can beimmediately classified according to the type of North Face jacket they wear. This is apparently acommon phenomenon in elementary and middle schools in particular, where the jackets are so popularthey have been dubbed "the uniform worn over the uniform," or "backbreakers," (thus called for thework put in by parents in order to afford the jackets for their children).The rankings also specify what type of student should be wearing which specific type of North Facejacket.At the bottom of the scale is the North Face Nuptse 2, cost ₩250,000 (approximately US$220), which isgenerally worn by “losers" (찌질이).Next on the list is the “common” Nuptse 1, worn both by “losers” and “gang members” (일진).Two categories up is the Dry Loft, ₩470,000. "Losers dont wear the jackets starting from this categorybecause theyre afraid of having them swiped by gang members."At the top, priced at ₩700,000 is the “rare” Himalayan Down Parka, the most expensive model worn by“the boss.”As laughable as this list may seem, according to some students it simply puts into words what remainsunspoken in school halls.“You can definitely label people according to what North Face jackets they wear,” says Park Jin, 14, whois the class president of his middle school in western Seoul.“If you wear a really expensive one, then the iljin (gang members) in school come and take it from you.”13
  • 23. Bullying: What are the Differences between Boys and Girls?education.comBullying is defined as a form of aggression that is repetitively exerted against an individual who feelsunable to defend him/herself (10). This aggression may occur directly against someone in a physical (forexample, slapping, pushing) or verbal (for example, swearing, name calling) manner. Bullying can also beindirect whereby the targeted person experiences the aggression through others (for example, gossipedabout, excluded from a social activity).How are Girls Involved in Bullying?Through Peer GroupGirls tend to bully other girls indirectly through the peer group. Rather than bully a targeted childdirectly, girls more often share with other girls (and boys) hurtful information about the targeted child(4). For example, a girl may tell a group of girls an embarrassing story about another girl. They maycreate mean names, gossip, and come up with ways of letting the girl know that she is rejected from thepeer group (for example, saying mean things about her on social networking sites such as Facebook orMySpace, using her email address to send harassing messages to everyone on her email list, texting hera death threat). These are called “relational” bullying because they attack relationships and friendships.How are Boys Involved in Bullying?PhysicalIn contrast to girls, boys of any age and ethnic group tend to be physically aggressive (e.g., hit, kick, slap,push, or punch) (1, 2, 9, 11, 14, 20). Also, research shows that physical abuse tends to occur more oftenamong boys than girls at all educational levels (e.g., elementary, high school, college) (13, 15, 16). Inaddition, male college students tend to bully and be bullied through physical and verbal forms ofbullying (e.g., name-calling) more often than college girls (15).Also boys may be more accepting of bullying, than are girls (17). That is, boys may like a girl even if shebullies others and like other boys who bully. Girls may still befriend boys who bully, but tend to dislikegirls who bully. At the core of these differences are children’s and, indeed, societal beliefs aboutacceptable behaviors for boys and girls. Many people may see bullying among boys as “just boys beingboys”. So, girls may accept this attitude and tolerate boys’ bullying. However, girls may be less acceptingof girls who bully if it is seen as overly aggressive.14
  • 24. Effects of Bullying: Signs That A Child Is Being BulliedAll types of bullying may have a tremendous impact on targeted children. They may feel depressed,anxious, eat or sleep less or more, have difficulty concentrating on school work, have trouble makingfriends with others, lie, steal, run away from home, avoid school or even consider suicide (1, 3, 13, 18).Children may not want to tell anyone if they feel they deserve this type of treatment, caused it, or thattelling would make it worse (which the bully may have threatened). There may also be long-term effectsof bullying on bullies themselves (13). Some children who bully at a young age may continue to useaggression and control in other relationships as they grow older (13). For example, boys may start datingearlier than other boys and be aggressive in these relationships. Also, as adults they may be aggressivetowards colleagues, use aggression with their own children, and engage in criminal acts including sexualassault. Girls involved in significant bullying in the early grade school years may experience depressionover a long term, attempt suicide, or develop an eating disorder (19).Again, individual men and women, and boys and girls experience bullying in unique ways. Research hasdocumented some of the differences mentioned in this article. It is important to keep in mind, however,that boys may also experience indirect forms of bullying, and girls may experience direct forms. Inaddition, children involved in bullying may both be targeted and exert aggression themselves.The Importance for Parents: What Parents Can Do To Prevent BullyingFor parents, it’s important to recognize signs in their sons and daughters that they may be involved insome or many forms of bullying and to address these experiences as soon as they arise. For example,checking in with children at the end of the day can include conversation about academic subjects as wellas peer relationships. Questions such as the following, may encourage children to discuss theirfriendship experiences with their parents:1. ‘What did you do at recess today?”, or2. “How is your friend (name) doing these days?”When children express negative emotions about their peers it is helpful to acknowledge these feelings,encourage them that it’s normal to feel this way, and to discuss practical strategies together, especiallythose that the child considers most helpful.
  • 25. Pros and Cons of School UniformsBy SarabethAsaff for kids.lovetoknow.comPros ConsThe commonly cited advantages of uniforms areincreased academic performance, reducedbehavioral problems, increased social harmony,and reduced costs of clothing students.Academic OutcomesMany educators believe that students who wearschool uniforms perform better academically inschool, and a study done in 1998 by NotreDame shows a slight statistical elevation in studentperformance among students who wear uniforms.Students are often so focused on their wardrobethat it distracts them from learning.Some experts believe that a mandatory uniformpolicy will remove this distraction and improvestudent attention, believing that uniforms set amore serious tone within the school environmentthat is conducive to learning and can improvestudent performance. They also believe thatschool uniforms improve student attendance.Many parents report that their children spend agreat deal of time planning and choosing theirdaily clothing and that uniforms allow students touse this time to sleep or study.Behavioral OutcomesIt is generally thought that students who wearschool uniforms behave more appropriately in theschool environment. They believe that uniformsdictate a stricter atmosphere and that studentswho wear uniforms are more likely to followschool rules. The US Department of Educationmaintains that the mandatory use of standardizeddress reduces violence within the school.Social OutcomesUniforms can be a social equalizer.Some experts believe that, more than in any otherarea, school uniforms improve the social outcomesSelf-ExpressionMany educators and sociology experts arguethatrequiring children to wear standardized uniformsstifles their self-expression. Self-expression is animportant part of child development and someexperts believe that curbing it with uniforms canbe detrimental to children. Experts also believethat students who are forced to wear uniforms willonly find other, less appropriate ways to expressthemselves, possibly through inappropriate use ofmakeup and jewelry.IndividualitySome experts believe that public educationattempts to strip children of their individuality.They believe that public education does not meetthe needs of children who do not fall in the norm,and that uniforms attempt to force every studentinto one mold. They see standard dress as yetanother way for public educators to removestudent individuality where they should beembracing and celebrating diversity. Some expertsbelieve it is not in the best interest of the child totry to control socialization, which is a part ofhuman nature. They believe that such use ofschool uniforms does not prepare children for thereal world, in which they will be judged by theirappearance.CostThere are just as many experts who believe thatthe cost of school uniforms is a negative factor asthose who see it as a positive factor. Some expertsbelieve that it increases the amount of clothingparents will have to buy for their children becausethe children will still want and need clothing forthe hours they are not in school. Uniforms can bemore expensive for a family who buys from15
  • 26. in a school environment. Clothing and fashion areoften at the root of social conflict. Children areoften ridiculed by other children because of theway they dress. Many children use clothing toexpress themselves and to define themselves. Thisself-expression and definition often leads to theformation of cliques in the school environment.Many students feel that they are judged accordingto what they wear by other students, as well as byteachers and administrators. School uniformsremove these factors from the social environmentwithin the school, thus relieving students from thepressure to fit in. Experts believe that, byimproving the social environment throughmandatory standardized dress, both academic andbehavioral outcomes improve.CostIn some cases, the use of school uniforms is moreaffordable to families because there is not as muchpressure to buy expensive, trendy clothing.Uniforms are made to last, and can be washedeasily and frequently. After the initial cost ofbuying uniforms, there is no need to spend asmuch money on clothing.second-hand stores or who relies on hand-me-down clothing from friends and family. Someexperts believe the cost is a negative aspect ofschool uniforms because there is no use for themoutside of school.ComfortCritics argue that different types of clothing feelcomfortable to different people. Some children aremore comfortable in a specific material or style ofclothing. Uniforms reduce ones ability to chooseclothing that fits individual comfort needs. Expertsbelieve that children need to feel comfortable inorder to maximize learning, and that uniforms can,in this way, deter academic success for somechildren.Delays Transition into AdulthoodSome experts feel that self-expression and self-identification as a teenager helps prepare them tomake the leap into adulthood. By forcingteenagers to wear school uniforms, it limits theirability to express in this manner, which may delaytheir transition into adulthood. One study done inthe state of Louisianafound that the only benefitsderived from school uniforms ended once thestudents left middle school, and that no benefitswere found for high school students.Expert OpinionsMany educators and experts believe that, although in theory uniforms should improve academic,behavioral and social outcomes, in reality they do not. These experts argue that the studies of schoolswho initiate uniforms do not report improvement in any of these areas; therefore, if the desiredoutcomes are not reached, there is no valid reason to standardize student dress.There are also, of course, experts who maintain that uniforms do have advantages. Every school districtdecides on this issue separately, usually following much debate surrounding the advantages anddisadvantages of requiring students to wear uniforms.
  • 27. School uniforms are a bad ideahttp://www.sd71.bc.ca/sd71/school/courtmid/_2006_student_web/7_6/2_c_Erica/school_uniforms_are_a_bad_idea.htmIf school had school uniforms then the kids would have to wear something that they didn’t wantto wear.What about the kid’s individuality if they are confined to wear something they don’t want towear then that is destroying kids rights. “Just because we are kids that doesn’t mean that weshould not be ignored” “we have rights too”.If school’s had school uniforms then it might cause problems in the student’s. Because thestudent’s might rebel and start to do stuff that teacher’s do when they don’t get paid enough.Go on strike or protest, a sit in that’s when kids and sometimes teacher’s sit in and refuse to dowork and they do that until they give in. so if they had school uniforms there might be problems.If the school’s had school uniforms then there could be problems with the cost. If a family waspoor and The school just had a meeting about the students and them not following the dresscode so they have decided to put school uniforms in to actions. But what happens if they poorfamily cant pay for the school uniforms. Will the kids get kicked out or will the kids get theuniforms and the parents will have to work until they pay off their debt to the school or what.If school’s had school uniforms then what would happen if the kids didn’t like them? Well thekids might come back and refuse to wear them. They might have taken a sewing class so theycould make them different they would change them to look really good. Because some student’s(like me) I would probably not like them, not want to wear them. So I would change them intosomething tighter, shorter or twisting and winding them to make them look much betterIf schools had school uniforms then the kids would probably not be happy. What if they just puta dress code on? Then the kids would have guide lings but they would be ably top wear whatever they want whenever they want. But with limits so they don’t go over bored and show un-needed parts of your body. So they can’t all wear the same thing because that would be aproblem.Just because some parents have to wear school uniforms doesn’t mean that kids should. Someparents have to wear uniforms so they can think that the kids have to. Well that’s not right.They chose to wear uniforms when they got a job ant they know that some have to wearuniforms. So just because they have to doesn’t make use have to. We should have to wearschool uniforms when we are older when we get jobs.I learned that children from kinder garden and up have to wear school uniforms. I mean like whywould they make children in kinder garden wear school uniforms they are not breaking any rulesthey don’t wear inappropriate cloths they are being dressed by there parents maybe not all ofthem but a lot of them are. But its not like they are buying mini skirts are tube tops they arewearing overalls, dresses or shorts that like are so long they are like pants. So why makechildren in kinder garden to grade tree have to wear school uniforms16
  • 28. Arguments Against School Uniformshttp://www.libertarian-logic.com/against-school-uniforms.htmlLets examine the arguments against school uniforms in government schools.Despite the enthusiasm for uniforms, there are plenty of good sound reasons to avoid them. As notedin my discussion of the benefits of school uniforms in government schools, they are something thatcould work well for certain individuals, but the idea that "one size fits all" just isnt appealing to thisLibertarian.So lets start. Making the top of the list is the idea that this policy is a "one size" fits all, and we allknow that isnt true.This is a common and irritating approach to government. Would you like it if a retail outlet treatedyou like a shoplifter? Of course not, but thats exactly what a "one size fits all" approach to doingbusiness would have your local retailers doing.1. We should have the courage to identify bad actors and implement measures directed atthem. Instead, we punish every student with a "one size fits all" mentality. If you lookclosely at the overall student body, youll likely find that there is a small percentage ofstudents that are gang members or drug dealers or miscreants of some sort.2. Why not target these individuals for control measures instead of everyone? Why not targetthese individuals for expulsion instead of treating the entire student body as if they were athreat of some sort?3. Our system of laws and regulations typically punish everyone for the actions of a few. Itsalways the few who things for the rest of us because of our proclivity to broadly apply a ruleinstead of taking the time to sort out who the trouble-makers are and deal with themindividually.4. Before we further this discussion, perhaps youd care to see a presentation from a school"outfitter" named Michael Apfelberg to see what he thinks about the negatives of schooluniforms. His observations, as a provider of school uniforms, ought to be enlightening.5. Wow, only three negatives from this school "outfitter." Imagine that! And, his negativenumber 3 was pretty lame at that. It makes me think that perhaps he isnt all that willing tolook at the other side.6. So, lets look at more arguments against school uniforms, and Ill dedicate reason #2 to ourfriend from New Hampshire, Mr. Apfelberg, who cant seem to think of reasons why schooluniforms are a bad idea.7. It creates yet another special interest group that wants to convince the government to dosomething that is in their favor. Perhaps our "outfitter," Mr. Apfelberg couldnt bring himselfto create reasoning against his own special interest. After all, people like him will bepetitioning the government (perhaps at multiple levels) to endorse the idea of schooluniforms.8. We dont need more special interest groups, and thats reason enough for me to be against17
  • 29. school uniforms.9. Implementing a school uniform program by itself reinforces the idea that simply changingwhat students wear will make a difference in their behavior. Its a type of "preventive law." Arestriction that is supposed to stop some undesirable behavior.10. The fact that we try it in the first place gives it some level of credibility as if student dress isreally the root cause of poor behavior and lower performance in school. Its not, so itsreasonable to be against school uniforms because there isnt a cause and effect relationship -something else is causing the violence, bad behavior and poor performance.11. Its an idea for fixing problems that allows us to conveniently avoid proper analysis thatwould identify causes of student violence and poor performance, and create appropriatesolutions.12. First and foremost, we need to clearly identify the problems. Then, we need to identify theimmediate causes of the problems. Only then can we target "fixes" that address the causes. Ifwe effectively address the causes, then the problems will be reduced or eliminated.13. Im against school uniforms simply because a lack of school uniforms isnt whats causing allthe problems. As George Carlin once said: "We dont have time for rational solutions."14. If everyone wears the same clothes, that doesnt transform individual students intowonderful community members with like minds and spirit. There needs to be more at workto create such "oneness," and it takes years to build such a culture.15. This type of thinking is a typical American "drive through" and "just add water" approach thatimagines such transformations could be created by quick and simple methods.16. Its very much like our foreign policies, we forget about the culture of others and how thatcant be changed overnight, no matter how much we wish it to be. We apparently have thesame arrogance when it comes to the culture of communities and individuals.17. Requiring uniforms isnt the role of government, unless that same government organizationis providing uniforms for their troops, and history shows that some countries have done justthat. Listen to observations from George Carlin who was also against school uniforms.18. If we allow school officials to prescribe school uniforms, then we can expect rules on hairstyles, makeup, deodorant, dental hygiene, fingernail length, shoes and so on. I dont like tolet the "camels nose under the tent," so Im against school uniforms as a broad brushapproach to solving problems.19. Following the lead from George Carlin, I believe its very likely that forcing kids to dress alikewill only help create more followers than leaders. If you become accustomed to being toldwhat to do, then how do you handle it when you finally graduate and youre placed in anenvironment where youre not told what to do?20. I think school uniforms set some students up for failure when it comes to making their owndecisions about who they are and how theyre going to present themselves to the world.21. If youre in favor of individual responsibility, then youre likely to be against school uniformsbecause such rules dont foster individuality or individual responsibility, they diminish it.22. Unless youre going straight from a government school into the military,the idea of a dress
  • 30. code isnt the way the real world works. People in a free society dress they way they wouldlike to. Especially in America, the melting pot, we have all manner of dress that originatesfrom our cultural differences.23. I thought we were supposed to be inclusive, accepting and tolerant.24. Self-image can be adversely affected by forcing someone to wear something that theydislike. Just think of all the unusual clothes that some people wear - baggy pants, jackets witharms too long, long legged pants that stack up around the ankles, hats on backwards andsideways, and blue jeans that are washed out and torn at the knees. Were talking aboutpersonal choices in dress here.25. Now, imagine that parents forced their kids to go to school with worn out, ripped andmisfitting clothes that were placed on them backwards or inside out. This wouldnt bepersonal choice, but it could be viewed as quite uncalled for.26. I could envision a lot of conflict arising from forcing a child to wear something they dislike.The same would be true if government officials from the school system told you how to dress,and thats why Im against school uniforms.27. If you think baggy pants allow students to bring weapons to school, then I suggest that clothesarent the cause of weapons, its something else. Lets focus on logical cause and effectrelationships, not band-aids like school uniforms.28. School uniforms diminish free expression at a time when young people are trying to establishwho they are among throngs of others. There is such a thing as distractions in the classroom,but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis or with a reasonable dress code.29. Punishing free expression by everyone because of the actions of a few is a bad precedence.Its not what freedom is all about.30. Uniforms cost money, and thats an additional financial burden placed on families. If a familywould like to purchase a set of clothes for their children to wear to school - "school clothes" -then thats just fine.31. Requiring a uniform to be purchased from a supplier isnt the business of school authorities,and the additional cost isnt justified. Its just another example of government mandates thatarent funded.You get the idea. Im against school uniforms, and I think most freedom-minded people are too.America is strong because we are composed of individuals who are allowed to be leaders andinnovators. Were strong because our government is supposed to be limited in scope and depth.Im against school uniforms because its more government, less freedom, less individual decision-making, and there is no clear link between school uniforms and causes of problems in schools. I wentto government schools that didnt require uniforms, and it didnt seem to affect our performance onelittle bit.If you believe that a lack of school uniforms is the cause of troubles in government schools, then youllalso likely believe that disease is caused by a lack of medication. And, this begs me to repeat thisimportant point: this Libertarian is against school uniforms because we havent done our homeworkto show that trouble in school is caused by a lack of school uniforms.
  • 31. An Argument Against School UniformsBy Joel M., Hinckley, UTteenink.comThere is an ongoing discussion in this nation about school uniforms, whether or not they help withbehavior problems, and increase test scores. As an eighth grade student at Delta Middle School, I donot want school uniforms. In this paper I will present the argument against wearing school uniforms. Iwill include, personal opinion and will also site research.Kade A., a sixth grade student, when asked about school uniforms said, “No, I don’t like them,because they are uncomfortable, and make you feel like you are in your church clothes all the time.”Daycen J., another student said, “I don’t like school uniforms because they take away student’sindividuality.”Dr. Alan Hilfer, senior psychologist in Brooklyn’s Children’s and Adolescent Unit at MaimonidesMedical Center states:"Clothes are a source of expression for children, and as kids get older, they become increasinglyresentful of uniforms….By instituting a uniform policy, schools are taking away kids’ individuality---schools need to decide if that sacrifice is worth making.”Dr. Hilfer is talking about whether taking away student’s individuality is worth the payoff of decreasedbehavior problems, and increased test scores. A study done by David L. Brunsma , University ofAlabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of Notre Dame, entitled Effects of Student Uniforms onAttendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement, showed that uniformsdid not lead to an improvement in these areas. Their conclusion was:“Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variablessuch as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing uniforms didnot appear to have any significantly different academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peergroup structures with proschool attitudes than other students.”One area that might be of concern is the lessening of gang related problems, and fashion wars. Astudy published in 1995, by Lillian O. Holloman, a clothing and textiles professor at Virginia PolytechicInstitute and State University, entitled Violence and Other Antisocial Behaviors in Public Schools: CanDress Codes Help Solve the Problem? explores the problems the students can get into because of theway they dress. The study says:“Gang colors and insignias, whether worn intentionally or unintentionally, can get a student jumpedor worse. Status clothes, such as team jackets of professional sports teams, leather coats and designersneakers, have led to thefts, sometimes by knife or at gunpoint.”18
  • 32. This may be true in some areas of the country, such as low-income, inner city areas, but I do notbelieve this to be true in the Millard County School District. I cannot recall any accounts of violenceagainst students caused by a student’s clothing selection. I believe that before you put into action aschool uniform policy based on such fears, you need to take into account the area the school is in, theeconomic level of the population, the number of people involved in gangs and the amount of gangrelated activity in the community.Most of the articles that I have read about whether wearing school uniforms changes behavior andincreases test scores, are inconclusive. Most of the time other rules are put into place along with theschool uniforms, which may lead to a desired behavior. However, the uniform itself cannot be entirelyresponsible for the change.Middle School/ Junior High is a time of maturing, physically, mentally, academically, and emotionally.Schools need to create an environment that encourages students individuality and motivate them tochallenge themselves and inspire self confidence. I feel that school uniforms diminish creativity andself expression.
  • 33. Scientific School Uniform ResearchThe scientific research on uniforms is just starting to come in. The following discusses a paper fromThe Journal of Education Research (Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62) by David L.Brunsma from the University of Alabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of Notre Dame:Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and AcademicAchievementThis study showed that uniforms did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use,or academic achievement.Heres the abstract from their study:Mandatory uniform policies have been the focus of recent discourse on public school reform.Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specificbehavioral and academic outcomes. Tenth grade data from The National Educational LongitudinalStudy of 1988 was used to test empirically the claims made by uniform advocates. The findingsindicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, orattendance. Contrary to current discourse, the authors found a negative effect of uniforms onstudent academic achievement. Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environments andstudent outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvementand reform.Brunsma and Rockquemore wanted to investigate the extraordinary claims being made about howwonderful school uniforms are, particularly from the Long Beach California. It was being claimed thatmandatory uniform policies were resulting in massive decreases (50 to 100 percent) in crime anddisciplinary problems.It is typically assumed, as exemplified in Long Beach, that uniforms are the sole factor causing directchange in numerous behavioral and academic outcomes. Those pronouncements by uniformproponents have raised strident objections and created a political climate in which public schooluniform policies have become highly contested. The ongoing public discourse is not only entrenched incontroversy but also largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hence, it now seems criticalthat empirical analysis should be conducted to inform the school uniform debate. In this study, weinvestigated the relationship between uniforms and several outcomes that represent the coreelements of uniform proponents claims. Specifically, we examined how a uniform affects attendance,behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. We believe that a thorough analysis19
  • 34. of the arguments proposed by uniform advocates will add critical insight to the ongoing debate on theeffects of school uniform policies. (Brunsma and Rockquemore, 1998, pg. 54)The authors point out that if uniforms work, they should see some of the following trends in schoolswith uniforms:1. Student uniforms decrease substance use (drugs).2. Student uniforms decrease behavioral problems.3. Student uniforms increase attendance.4. Student uniforms increase academic achievement.They suspected that whenother variables affecting these four items were accounted for, it would beshown that uniforms were not the cause for improvement.How They Did Their StudyThey used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and three follow-up studies. These studies tracked a national sample of eighth graders (in 1988) from a wide variety ofpublic and private schools and followed their academic careers through college. Some of the datacollected in the studies included uniform policies, student background (economic and minoritystatus), peer group (attitudes towards school and drug use), school achievement, and behavioralcharacteristics (how often did each student get into trouble, fights , suspensions, etc.). The authorsconcentrated on data from the students 10th grade year.Some of the independent variables they considered were sex, race, economic status, public or privateschool, academic or vocational "tracking", rural or urban district, peer proschool attitudes, academicpreparedness, the students own proschool attitudes, and most importantly, whether or not thestudents wore uniforms. The researchers wanted to determine if there was a tie between thesevariables and desirable behavior by the students. The areas that they were looking for improvementas a result of the previous variables included reduced absenteeism, fewer behavioral problems,reduced illegal drug use, and improved standardized test scores. The researchers considered thissecond group of variables to be the dependent variables. The goal of their study was to determine ifthere was any relationship between the independent variables (particularly uniforms) and thedependent variables.The authors took all of the data for these variables from the NELS:88 study and performed aregression analysis to see if any of the independent variables were predictors of any of the dependentvariables. If there was a strong tie in the data between any two variables ( uniforms and absenteeism,for example), it would show up in the study as a correlation coefficient close to 1 or -1. A correlationcoefficient near 0 indicates no relationship between the two variables. So, if wearing uniforms had alarge effect on behavior, we would expect to see a correlation coefficient of say 0.5 between uniformsand measures of good behavior. If we see a very low correlation coefficient between these two, thenwe know that wearing uniforms has no real effect on behavior.
  • 35. ResultsThe only positive result for uniforms that the study showed was a very slight relationship betweenuniforms and standardized achievement scores. The correlation coefficient was 0.05, indicating a veryslight possible relationship between the two variables, but showing that uniforms are a very poorpredictor of standardized test scores and that the relationship is much weaker than has beenindicated in the uniform debate. Notice that 0,05 is much closer to 0 than to 1. Other than this oneweak, possible relationship, uniforms struck out. In the authors own words:Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variablessuch as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing uniforms didnot appear to have any significantly different academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peergroup structures with proschool attitudes than other students. Moreover, the negative correlationsbetween the attitudinal variables and the various outcomes of interest are significant; hence, thepredictive analysis provides more substantive results.In other words, the authors saw no relationship between wearing uniforms and the desirablebehavior (reduced absenteeism, reduced drug usage, improved behavior). They did, however, see astrong relationship between academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and peers having proschoolattitudes and the desirable behaviors. Furthermore, they saw no relationship between wearinguniforms and the variables that do predict good behavior (academic preparedness, proschoolattitudes, and peers having proschool attitudes).ConclusionBased upon this analysis, the authors were forced to reject the ideas that uniforms improvedattendance rates, decreased behavioral problems, decreased drug use, or improved academicachievement. The authors did find that proschool attitudes from students and their peers and goodacademic preparedness did predict the desired behavior. They saw that wearing uniforms did not leadto improvements in proschool attitudes or increased academic preparation.
  • 36. School Uniforms: Panacea or Band-Aid?http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin130.shtmlDoes requiring students to wear uniforms directly affect school environment andstudent achievement, or is it the equivalent of painting the walls of a crumblingbuilding -- merely cosmetic? What does the research say? What do students, teachers,and parents say?Shopping for back-to-school clothes was just a little different this year for gap-toothed third graderAdiSirkes, who needed new clothes after his school adopted a uniform dress policy. Next year, hell goto a different school, one that mandates different uniforms -- and that will mean yet another wholenew wardrobe."My sons an unusual size," his mother Irit told Education World, "so its hard to find him clothesanyway. Limiting what I buy to certain colors makes shopping for him not only more expensive butthat much harder.""My fifth-grade daughter used to like school," added Connie Terry, "but last year, her school switchedto uniforms. Now when I ask her how school is going, the first thing out of her mouth is she hatesuniforms. Even during the summer time, shed say, I hate to wear uniforms. My daughter likes to beindividual, to wear what she wants. She doesnt want to have to wear what everyone else is wearing.It doesnt make her feel good about herself; it doesnt make her feel special."Despite complaints like these, public schools throughout the United States are adopting uniform dresspolicies.In 1994, the Long Beach, California, school system began requiring that students wear uniforms. Thesystem recorded a drop in suspensions, assaults, thefts, vandalism, and weapon and drug violationsand an increase in attendance. Ten states -- plus scores of individual communities -- followed suit andadopted some type of school uniform regulation. Included in those ranks were schools in Baltimore,Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, Phoenix, Seattle, andSt. Louis. This school year, 550,000 New York City elementary students are wearing uniforms.Although most evidence is anecdotal, the Long Beach schools werent the only schools to noteimproved behavior. Chicago school officials found a drop in gang violence after adopting schooluniforms. Birmingham schools reported a drop in weapon and drug incidents, and Houston schoolsreported a decrease in violent crime. Miami-Dade County schools, however, found that fights nearlydoubled at their middle schools after the school district adopted a uniform policy."Many schools here draw from varied socioeconomic levels," Bev Heller, a teacher at Fienberg-FisherElementary in Miami-Dade County told Education World. "Wealthier students may own every uniformaccessory and wear designer bracelets or shoes that light up; others -- if they do own uniforms -- havevery basic ones. Adopting uniforms certainly did not blur the socioeconomic lines in our studentbody.""Our school has had a mandatory uniform policy for three years," she continued. "There is a big signin our school, Uniforms Mandatory, but not all the students wear them. Our student body is20
  • 37. transient, and purchasing different uniforms every time a student moves can be very expensive.Requiring school uniforms could be a hardship, especially on students who frequently move."HOW TO ADOPT A UNIFORM POLICYBecause of results like those in Long Beach, Chicago, and Birmingham, many schools are adoptinguniform dress policies. Experts offer advice to those schools on how best to initiate it. Among the tipsincluded in the U.S. Department of Educations manual are the following:Involve parents and students from the beginning, including getting their input on what theuniform will look like. Students are more likely to wear a uniform they think is attractive thanone they hate. Make sure there are choices for types of tops and bottoms and perhaps evencolors so the uniform looks good on different body types.Decide what the ramifications will be if a student does not wear a uniform. Will the schooloverlook it? Will the child be sent home? Will your school give the child a uniform from anavailable supply and assess one fee if it is not returned and a smaller cleaning fee when it is?Decide in advance how your school will deal with this issue.Include an arrangement for students who cannot afford or choose not to wear uniforms.Some school districts collect old uniforms to distribute to needy families. Some distributedonated money so parents themselves can select their childrens uniforms. Others permitstudents who do not wish to wear uniforms to transfer to a school that does not requirethem, and some school districts have an opt-out policy."Before initiating a uniform policy, administrators need to investigate options and select the ones thatbest meet the individual schools needs," states the manual. "As the courts have yet to decide if apublic school district can make students wear uniforms, some sort of opt-out policy is definitelydesirable."WHY UNIFORMS?Proponents of school uniforms believe that in addition to reducing assaults, thefts, vandalism, andweapon and drug use in schools, requiring students to wear uniformsincreases security by making it obvious who is not supposed to be on campus;helps parents by reducing the cost of being fashionable;helps students resist peer pressure;blurs socioeconomic lines because people cannot judge others by their clothes;reduces arguments over clothes because kids have no reason to fight over or steal one
  • 38. anothers clothes;facilitates school pride, improves school climate, and sets the tone of the classroom as aserious place for learning;increases attendance and academic achievement;reduces gang violence.CAN UNIFORMS REALLY BRING ABOUT THE KINDS OF IMPROVEMENTS THATPROPONENTS CLAIM?Sociologists David Brunsma and Kerry Rockquemore discovered that requiring students to wearuniforms had no direct effect on substance abuse, behavioral problems, or school attendance. Theyused data on approximately 5,000 U.S. sophomores who were part of a 1988 National EducationalLongitudinal Study at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The results of that study aredocumented in The Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use,and Academic Achievement, published in The Journal of Educational Research.Brunsma told Education World that the tenth-grade students who were required to wear uniformsactually scored slightly lower on standardized achievement tests than did a comparable group notrequired to wear them."They think uniforms will solve every problem, but dont they understand being forced to wearuniforms could make rebellious teens even more rebellious?" 13-year-old Emily Granen askedEducation World. Rebellious teens forced to wear uniforms might be even less inclined to do well.Some people think that making kids wear uniforms will reform schools is the equivalent of paintingthe walls of a crumbling building -- merely cosmetic.Long Beach Unified School District public information director Dick Van Der Laan, speaking about thesuccesses achieved after initiating a uniform policy, says in the Manual on School Uniforms, "We cantattribute the improvement exclusively to school uniforms...." What has been found to decreasevandalism, school crime in general, and fights is using a combination of initiatives, one of which couldbe requiring students to wear uniforms."Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environment and student outcomes by providing avisible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement and reform," Brunsma toldEducation World. "They are not the sole factor responsible for the numerous behavioral and academicoutcomes attributed to them."Schools that include, among other initiatives, see-through plastic or mesh book bags, metal detectors,aggressive truancy-reduction initiatives, drug-prevention efforts, student and/or athlete drug testing,community efforts to limit gangs, a zero-tolerance policy for weapons, character education classes,and conflict resolution proposals -- plus the uniform initiative -- frequently do improve schooldiscipline and safety.Although not a panacea for rectifying educational issues, students who wear uniforms may engender
  • 39. positive changes in themselves and in schools. Teacher Kathleen Modenback of Northshore HighSchool, a school in Louisiana that adopted a uniform policy this year, told Education World, "Ive neverbeen concerned with what my students wear. Supervising uniforms and dress codes only lengthensthe long list of parental jobs that educators have taken over in recent years. Uniforms, which areeconomical and easy for parents, are sometimes looked on as a solution to the atmosphere ofimpending danger that has settled on schools nationwide."However, after seeing our students in uniforms for the last two weeks, I see an almost magicalchange in the student body. My seniors talk of the ease with which they dress in the morning, and allthe kids seem calmer and more mild-mannered. Almost all the students were wearing the uniformsalthough the deadline for wearing them was weeks away. Maybe theres something to them. Perhapsthey draw us all into a sense of false security and well-being that only conformity can give."
  • 40. Argumentative Essay: School Uniformwww.scholaradvisor.comThe idea of school uniforms seems like an antiquated concept for many North Americans. Unless achild attends private school, it is not normally practiced by children and families. Yet around theworld, wearing school uniforms is the norm. Students studying in schools requiring school uniformsgenerally perform very well academically and seem happy wearing the same outfit every day. Thereare many benefits to wearing school uniforms that schools in Canada and the United States shouldincorporate into their public schools.One of the biggest concerns in schools these days is bullying. Students are harassed physically,verbally, and socially. The latest trend in bullying is cyberbullying. Often, the cause of bullying stemsfrom people being different for not wearing the “right” clothes. If someone looks richer, most peoplefeel like they have a higher social status or more power. To the contrary, uniforms allow children tolearn on a more level playing field, with less judgment about clothing choices, brands of clothing, orphysical appearance.A lot of students who wear uniforms claim that they feel more proud of their school. Wearing schoolcolors gives students a feeling of being more connected to their school and classmates. If there is asense of community and connectedness among the students, the use of foul language, gang behavior,and crimes like vandalism are largely eliminated. Wearing school uniforms can also help people gainmore self-confidence because they know they are a part of something bigger.One of the main concerns people have about wearing school uniforms is conformity. People fear thatby making children look the same, their individuality will be suppressed. However, this is not the case.Accessories, such as bracelets and hair clips, can jazz up a school uniform. Besides, students can weartheir own clothing after school and during weekends. An individual’s personality is not whollyexpressed by fashion alone. Personality is determined by the way a person moves, feels, thinks, andtalks. Wearing a school uniform neither defines a child’s personality nor erases it.There are even more advantages to wearing school uniforms in public schools in addition to thosepreviously mentioned. It means lower costs for parents during back-to-school shopping. However, theidea that bullying might be alleviated is the leading reason why schools should implement the wearingof uniforms. The other is the fostering of school pride. Students will not lose their personality but willmerely learn new ways to express themselves.21
  • 41. History of School Uniformskids.lovetoknow.comBy Jodee RedmondLearning something about the history of school uniforms can help parents and students gain someperspective on whether they are in favor of them or not.School uniforms worn by students tend to be conservative in style. For boys, they may be made up ofdark pants and a light colored shirt. A tie completes the outfit. School uniforms for girls may be madeup of a blouse worn with a skirt, culottes, a jumper, or a dress. Some schools will allow femalestudents to wear pants. A jacket may be worn by both genders.History of School Uniforms Over TimeThe history of school uniforms can actually be dated back to the fall of the Roman Empire whenformal education also stopped for young people in the West. Boys were sometimes chosen to attendsong schools to prepare them for the priesthood. They may have worn similar clothing whileattending classes.In the Middle Ages, priests often took on the role of teacher. Boys were the only ones offered aneducation, since educating girls wasnt considered a priority at that time. Students attending secularschools probably didnt wear uniforms while attending classes, which could be for up to 12 hours aday.School Uniforms in EnglandMost students attending elementary and secondary schools in England are required to wear uniforms.Policies vary from school to school as to how strictly the wearing of the uniform is enforced.In thepast several years, a trend has emerged where school uniforms are more modern. Instead of thetraditional uniform (including a blazer and tie) in a thick fabric, T-shirts, polo shirts and sweatshirts inschool colors may be worn. Plain colored pants or jeans may be worn at some schools.This policy was adopted to modernize the apparel of students and also to help families who werefinding it difficult to afford the standard school uniform. Another consideration is the fact that schoolsare now using central heat in the winter, which means the temperature during colder months is mucheasier to control. Students no longer need to bundle up in old-style uniforms to stay comfortablewhile attending classes in winter, and these styles are not the best choice during summer months.Some schools in England are bucking the trend toward more modern school uniforms, and insteadhave chosen to go back to more traditional ones. Administrators want students to have a moreconservative look and feel that having students wear uniforms will help to combat bullying.22
  • 42. School Uniforms in the United StatesMost public schools in the U.S. dont require students to wear uniforms; however, the number ofschools that require pupils to wear uniforms has been on the rise. Those children attending privateschools are likely to be required to wear uniforms when they go to school. Catholic schools inparticular expect students to dress in a certain way.Options Instead of School UniformsInstead of setting a policy that students are required to wear a uniform, many school districts decideon a standardized dress code instead. These may be adopted in an attempt to keep "gang clothing"out of schools and to reduce pressure on students (and their parents) to buy certain brands ofclothing in order to fit in or be popular.The dress code may specify that certain parts of the body must remain covered while on schoolproperty (stomach and back). Most schools would not encourage students to wear T-shirts withviolent messages or offensive language on them. Some dress codes may be quite specific about thestyle of dress that students are allowed to wear, while others give pupils a certain amount of leeway.Students and their parents may be told that they are expected to wear clothing that is clean, neat,and that covers them appropriately.These recent developments will form part of the history of school uniforms, and we can look back tosee how the popularity of school uniforms changes with time.
  • 43. "School Uniforms: Prevention or Suppression?"by Raymond F. Felch IIIConsider the following excerpts from the President’s Radio Address to the Nation;"This morning I want to talk with you about what we can do to break hold of gangs and violence in ourschools and what we can do to create an atmosphere in our schools that promotes discipline and orderand learning ... I believe we should give strong support to school districts that decide to require youngstudents to wear school uniforms. We’ve all seen the tragic headlines screaming of the death of ateenager who was killed for a pair of sneakers or jewelry or a designer jacket. In Detroit, a 15-year oldboy was shot for his $86 basketball shoes. In Fort Lauderdale, a 15-year old student was robbed of hisjewelry. Just this past December in Oxon Hill, Maryland, a 17-year old honor student was killed at abus stop, caught in the cross fire during the robbery of another students designer jacket" (Clinton,"Transcript," 1-2).Why are we proposing to mandate school uniforms for all elementary and middle schools students,while at the same time excluding high school students? Is it not obvious, by the President’s ownaccounting, that the problem group is teenage students ages 15 and older? Moreover, is there anyindisputable evidence that school uniforms can help cure society’s violence and disciplinaryproblems? How reliable are the statistics that show the short term implementation of school uniformsin a select group of elementary and middle schools prevents violence? Knowing all of this, are we stillwilling to freely give up more of our God given constitutional rights? Worse yet, by accepting thisproposal, are we saying that we are in favor of stifling the creativity and individuality of our children?The Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, and under the directionof President Clinton, has developed the Manual of School Uniforms. On February 24, 1996, PresidentClinton signed a directive to distribute this manual to the Nation’s 1600 public school districts(Clinton, "Text," 2). Furthermore, the leaders of our schools appear to have hastily embraced this newproposal. A recent national survey of 5,500 secondary school principals shows that they feel schooluniforms would help eliminate violence (Tousignant 1). Shawn Ashley, principal in the Long BeachUnified School District, claims there have been fewer incidents of fighting since they imposed themandatory school uniform policy one year ago. Ashley reports that incidents of fighting has droppedfrom 1,135 in the 1993-94 school year, to only 554 for the 1994-95 school year (Kennedy 1). Clearly,this is an issue that affects parents across the nation, and should be carefully examined before givingour unconditional support. I believe that any proposal is dangerous if it fails to address the realproblem, threatens to diminish our constitutional rights and has been promoted by using misleadingstatistics.There is no question that school uniforms can instill a feeling of school spirit, school pride and social23
  • 44. acceptance. When compared to designer clothes and name brand basketball shoes, school uniformscan also be a cost effective solution to school wear. Surely, this is an appealing benefit to thosefamilies that find it difficult, if not impossible, to afford such luxuriance. Certainly, parents will findthat it is easier to shop for their children’s school attire, and the students will be able to quicklychoose their outfits for school in the morning.Unfortunately, as well served as this proposal may appear, school uniforms can not solve the nation’sproblems of gang violence. Clearly, these deeply rooted problems are well beyond the scope of anyschool uniform policy. Furthermore, mandating this policy only at the elementary and middle schoollevel does nothing to curb gang violence occurring at the high schools across our country. As LorenSiegel, Director of the Public Education Department, ACLU, points out, school administrators andteachers have been reluctant to impose the school uniform policy on high school students, because itmost certainly will cause the teenagers to rebel (Siegel 1). Cecilia Smith, a guidance counselor atForestville High School in Prince George’s, tells of how teenage students rebelled when schooluniforms were tried at their school. Smith explains that the teenagers were rebelling because theywere afraid that "it was going to take their individuality away" (Tousignant 2).Also, Siegel argues that younger children can be persuaded to wear school uniforms. Some childrenmay even like the idea of school uniforms and the feeling of being part of the school community.Unfortunately, teenagers are at a point in their lives where expressing their individuality is extremelyimportant. She describes teenagers as young people that are striving to express uniqueness in manydifferent ways. Siegel cleverly shows that the teenagers are already in uniforms of their own choosing-- baggy pants, T-shirts and baseball caps worn backward (Siegel 1). Clearly, there is no way thatschool administrators, teachers and parents could expect the proposed school uniform policy to beimposed at the high school level.Up until now, we have discussed why a school uniform policy is futile in preventing gang violence inour schools. This however, is not the only problem with the school uniform policy. We still need toexamine the effect that such a proposal would have on our constitutional rights.Recently, the A.C.L.U. represented twenty-six families in a school uniform lawsuit against the LongBeach Unified School District. Although the case resulted in an out-of-court settlement, and bothsides tentatively agreed to certain provisions, this case raised important issues concerning our legalrights. Barbara Bernstein, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, reaffirmed theopinion of the A.C.L.U. when she stated that requiring school uniforms is not only illegal, it is not thesolution to the school system’s problems. Clearly, Bernstein was in favor of President Clinton’s goal,calling it "admirable;" however she pointed out that it should not be "accomplished at the expense ofconstitutional rights" (McCarthey 2). Surely, the Long Beach lawsuit has been instrumental in raisingthe public’s awareness of the legal ramifications associated with adopting the school uniformproposal.
  • 45. One important aspect caused by the litigation surrounding the school uniform policy is the "opt out"provision. As a condition of the Long Beach settlement, the school district will attempt to improve thecommunication with parents and provide improved exemption procedures. The relevance of thisprovision is clearly demonstrated by the reference made in the Manual of School Uniforms, Item #5:"When a mandatory school uniform policy is adopted, determine whether to have an ‘opt out’provision" ("Manual" 2). The reference in this manual instructs the school administrators on how toprovide parents with an exemption from the policy. In some cases, the parents can "opt" to have theirchildren go to another school. In the case where all of the schools in the district require uniforms, as isthe case in the Long Beach Unified School District, the parents can "opt" to send their children toschool without uniforms ("Manual" 2). In any case, the inclusion of this provision in PresidentClinton’s Manual of School Uniforms shows a genuine concern that a mandatory policy may infringeon our constitutional rights.Obviously, one would have to agree that a school uniform policy can do little to fight gang violence inour schools. Furthermore, we should all be in agreement that a mandatory school uniform policy isconsidered unconstitutional. These issues however, are not the only ones surrounding the schooluniform proposal. To gain an overall understanding of the problem, discussion of the misleadingstatistics used in promoting this policy is necessary.In order to emphasis his position on the school uniform proposal and its apparent effectiveness,President Clinton draws attention to the Long Beach Unified School District as the model system. AsSiegel points out, in an obvious attempt to demonstrate its success, President Clinton misleadinglyreports the Long Beach School’s self-generated data showing decreases in student misconduct.Unfortunately, there was no mention of the other steps taken by the School District to improve schoolbehavior during the experimental year. Siegel reports, at the same time the school uniform policy wasimplemented, the District began "increasing the number of teachers patrolling the hallways duringclass changes" (Siegel 1). Clearly, no one can be sure which change had the most effect on studentbehavior. Furthermore, we need to remember who the gate-keeper of this conclusive data is. Couldthe school administrators, in an attempt to promote the effectiveness of their new policy and in lightof the national attention it had drawn, have possibly overlooked certain infractions during the year?Whereas, the reliability of the Long Beach case study is clearly questionable, we must also examinethe effects of other changes made at the state level across the nation. Craig Donegan, editor forCongressional Quarterly, reports a 1995 survey by the National Conference of Mayors indicating therehas been an increase in the number of youth curfews by 45 percent since 1990. Donegan alsoacknowledges that a recent National Governor’s Association (NGA) report states that between 1992and 1994 there have been 27 states that have passed laws making it easier to prosecute children asadults (Donegan 2). In addition, Senator John Ashcroft enacted the Violent and Hardcore JuvenileOffender Reform Act of 1995 (Donegan 1). Ashcroft also indicated that he wants the funding of theJuvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to be contingent upon states prosecuting juveniles age
  • 46. 14 and up as adults. Many cities and states have adopted laws that hold the parents of delinquentchildren accountable for their chldren’s behavior (Donegan 2). Clearly, there have been many changesmade at the national, state and local levels which have been attributed to having a positive effect onjuvenile violence. Regardless of these changes, there is very little correlation between requiringschool uniforms at the elementary and middle school levels, and the recent reduction in teenageviolence at our high schools.In conclusion, the failure to address the real problem of violence in our schools, it’s impact on ourconstitutional rights and the misleading manner in which it has been proposed, clearly illustrates whywe should avert from an unconditional acceptance of the mandatory school uniform policy. It is veryclear that we have a serious juvenile violence problem in our country, and positive efforts areconstantly being made to alleviate the problem. However, we should not fall victim to the illusion thatrequiring school uniforms for children under the age of 14 can prevent this teenage violence.Likewise, we need to remember that our constitution insures our right to creativity. We have anobligation to insure that our children are allowed to grow, to be creative and to be independentthinkers. Finally, there has not been any official case studies conducted that prove that schooluniforms can prevent teenage violence. The disseminated and relaxed data, which has been socleverly capitalized upon by our administrators, is inconclusive at best. Our tendency tounconditionally accept a school uniform proposal is just one more example of society’s apatheticapproach to problem solving. We all need to take a more active role when addressing issues thatconcern the rights and welfare of our family.

×