UNIFORMSAre They a Good FitBy Marsha BoutelieFrom Cal.docx

UNIFORMS
Are They a Good Fit?
By Marsha Boutelie
From California Schools
Sixth-grader Tiffany gets sentto the principal's office because
her teacher thinks the
girl is inappropriately dressed. Tif-
fany is wearing a micro-mini skirt
rolled down to just above her belly
button and a halter top that ex-
poses her midriff.
Principal Judy Montgomery, of
Sacramento's Bear Flag Elementary
School, takes Tiffany home to
change her clothes and to check in
with her parents. Their reaction
isn't what she expects.
"Her mother was upset with
me," Montgomery says. "She said,'I
think she looks cute!'"
In an era where some parents
seem unwilling or unable to draw
the "clothes" line with their chil-
dren, where pop culture influences
kids' clothing choices as never be-
fore, and school safety—including

gang violence—is at the top of
everyone's minds, school uniforms
and dress codes can play a signifi-
cant role. But what that role should
be is open to interpretation and
can be a source of frustration—and
skirmishes.
Dress Codes and the Ed Code
California Education Code 35183
gives school districts the power to
regulate student attire, declaring
that "schools need the authoriza-
tion to implement uniform clothing
requirements." On the other hand,
it also states, "The governing board
shall provide a method whereby
parents may choose not to have
their children comply with an
adopted school uniform policy."
This legislation can be exasper-
ating. For the most part, districts
allow schools to decide whether to
Marsha Boutelie is a staff writer for California Schools.
Condensed from
California Schools magazine, (Fall 2007), with permission from
the California
School Boards Association (www.csba.org).
34 www.eddigest.com

UNIFORIVIS: Are They a Good Fit?
impose dress codes or require uni-
forms. School officials I interviewed
sought their constituents' buy-in,
asking parents and students to vote
on the issue and typically requiring
about 75 percent approval to pro-
ceed. That leaves the 25 percent
who don't approve, and disapprov-
ing parents certainly influence
their children's attitudes, which
adds to the difficulty in admin-
istering the rule. Then there are
parents who opt their children
out of the provision.
At Montgomery's school,
only about 1 percent of parents
officially opt their kids out, "But
there is a huge problem with about
another 30 percent who do not sign
a waiver and do not abide by the
policy There is not enough meat
in the policy to actually require
families to abide by the uniform,
which makes it very hard to en-
force."
Every day, teachers must try to
remember which students who are
not in uniform have turned in waiv-
ers signed by their parents allow-
ing them to opt out, or they must
take up valuable class time check-
ing each child's status against a

list. The task can be complicated
by students who show up out of
uniform without a waiver and stu-
dents in only partial compliance—
wearing the proper pants with a
nonstandard shirt or, in a school
that prohibits prints, wearing socks
embossed with the image a Winnie-
the-Pooh character. (Napa Valley
Unified School District is appealing
a trial court judge's ruling that its
restriction on prints violates stu-
dents' freedom of expression.)
At Barbara Comstock Morse El-
ementary School, Principal Mike
Gulden uses a combination of logic
and humor.
Uniforms "promote schooi
safety and eniiance the
learning environment, and
diminish the ciothing
competition."
"Kids don't want to do their
homework, either," Gulden says.
"The reality is, there's an instruc-
tional purpose [to requiring uni-
forms]. I tell them, 'We wear uni-
forms because (1) that's our policy,
(2) you see me wearing it, and (3)
what if your parents came in to see
me in the office, and I had my shirt-
tails hanging out and three or four

layers of clothes on?'"
Gulden wears the school's uni-
form colors in some combination
every day, and he believes that staff
needs to "walk the walk" as well.
The vigor with which schools
enforce apparel policies differs from
school to school. Some will send
children home for what may seem
like a minor infraction. Others try
to be accommodating, realizing that
neither parents nor children can
always adhere to policy.
"It comes up quite often from
parents who are tired of trying to
February 2008 35
THE EDUCATION DIGEST
get the child to weai- the uniform,"
Gulden says. "I try to strike a happy
medium and say, 'Wear It only two
or three days a week' or 'rearrange
the styles a bit.'" -,
"What if the uniforms disap-
peared tomorrow?" Gulden asks.
Differences between "our needy
kids and fairly well-tordo kids might
become magnified and polarize the

campus," creating resentment and
. tension. "Life has enough hurdles
for families and kids; I don't think
one of them should be here at
school. There's that stigma of 'my
socioeconomic status.' Kids 5, 6, 7
years old shouldn't have to deal
with that."
Leveling the Playing Reid
Still, uniforms offer a variety of
benefits, according to supporters.
Uniforms "promote school safety
and enhance the learning environ-
ment, and diminish the clothing
competition," says Linda Rondeau,
assistant superintendent of educa-
tional services at Pittsburg Unified
School District.
Her district's transition to uni-
forms didn't occur without some
snags.
"Elementary was really all right
with it, [since] most of the students
at our sites had been voluntarily
wearing uniforms, for a couple of
years," Rondeau says. "The junior
high students were quite unhappy
with it. Overall, parents were
thrilled.
"Now, no one is looking at shirts

with graffiti or wondering if what
[students] are wearing is affiliated
with a gang or worrying about
someone's designer sweatshirt,"
Rondeau adds.
• Judy Hunt-Brown, principal at
Maeola R. Beitzei Elementary
School in Sacramento, says class-
mates who are dressed alike are far
less distracted.
"With today's fashions of mini-
mal dress, there are fewer issues
with clothes that are too reveal-
ing," Hunt-Brown says. "Students
spend less time talking about and
analyzing everyone's dress. There
are also fewer issues with the kind
of shoes students need to have to
be able to participate in physical
education."
Empiricai Data
and Everyday Experience
In his 1996 State of the Union
Address, Bill Clinton challenged
schools ''to teach character educa-
tion, to teach good values and good
citizenship. And if it means that
teenagers will stop killing each
other over designer jackets, then
our public schools should be able
to require their students to wear
school uniforms." This often-quoted

remark is cited by advocates as a
primary argument for uniforms in
public schools. But whether—or
how much—uniforms promote
safety remains subject to debate.
"It is not true that there has
been no empirical research con-
ducted to assess the effectiveness
36 www.eddigest.com
UNIFORMS: Are They a Good Rt?
of school uniforms on student be-
havior and educational outcomes,
yet there is much to be done," David
Brunsma, a sociology, professor at
the University of Missouri, wrote in
The School Uniform Movement and
What It Tells Us About American
Education.
He went on to use reports from
the U.S Department of Education's
National Center for Education Sta-
tistics to debunkthe notion that
there is a correlation between
school safety and uniforms.
Quoted in a July 2006 article ori.
GreatSchools.net, Brunsma
said critics "appear, to want to
continue relying on anecdotal
aspects of the debate while sim-

ply disregarding rigorous, sci-
entific study of the issue."
It's not known how much
time Brunsma has spent standing
ina crowded hallway when classes
let out. But elementary principals
who do that regularly have a store
of personal experience that contra-
dicts Brunsma's academic argu-
ment.
And, in any event, ridding their
schools of gang colors is just one
benefit principals attribute to uni-
forms. There's also the ease with
which students can be identified
on field trips—and, on campus, the
ease with which intruders out of
uniform can be detected.
Hunt-Brown also embroiders a
broader benefit onto the list; "Over-
all improved student behavior as
a result of uniforms results in few-
er behavior incidents on campus."
John Ginn, principal at Sacra-
mento City USD's Bowling Green
Charter School, adds another ob-
servational benefit to the mix.
"Wearing uniforms is promot-.
ing job skills at a young age," Ginn
says. "We learn to dress properly

for work, church, play, et cetera.
Whenever we are lucky enough to
have a student wear his uniform
" . ; . if it means that teen-
agers wiii stop kiiiing
eacii other over designer
jackets, then our public
schools shouid be able to
require their students to
wear school uniforms."
with a sports coat or blazer, we tell
him that he is looking like an adult
going to work." . .
To those who question whether
uniforms smother students' cre-
ative freedom of expression.
Rondeau says no way.
"We hope to see students' cre-
ativity [expressed] academically
and. artistically," Rondeau says.
"There was. a great article writ-
ten by Jeffrey Earl Warren.re-
garding school uniforms (San Fran-
cisco Chronicle, April 2, 2007). His
ending statement reads; 'Uniforms
allow children the right to distin-
guish themselves by the deeds
they've done, not the duds they
wecir."' Qf]
February 2008 37

What Not To Wear: Dress Codes and
Uniform Policies in the Common School
DIANNE GERELUK
A multitude of reasons are given for banning various forms of
symbolic clothing. The only thing that is clear is that there has
not been a definitive way to proceed. The lack of clarity and
ambiguity over what children should be allowed to wear
in schools is apparent. Consequently, policies regarding
symbolic clothing are inconsistent and erratic, at best. This
article explores the reasons used for the banning of symbolic
clothing in schools and recommends four principles that may
assist educators and policy analysts in developing more
consistent guidelines. It is hoped that the principles put
forward will underpin future policy discussions in defining
the acceptable parameters of symbolic clothing.
INTRODUCTION
The restriction of dress in schools is not new. Students and
teachers alike
have always had restrictions on what is appropriate and
inappropriate
dress. Virtually with no exception, schools have minimum dress
codes in
place: rules about what cannot be worn at school. Uniform
policies state
explicitly what must be worn in schools. And while this is

common
practice across schools in many countries, what is controversial
is whether
and to what extent school pupils should be allowed to wear
symbolic
clothing. France has arguably had the most media attention in
this respect
as a result of its 2004 legislation banning all ostentatious
religious
symbols in schools. Yet various countries have increasingly had
contentious debates about whether symbolic clothing should be
allowed
in schools and, more generally, in the public sphere. It is
apparent that the
broader issue of symbolic clothing is not peculiar to France, but
a matter
of growing international concern—one charged with emotion
and
sensitivity.
Schools shoulder much of the burden in trying to maintain the
delicate
balance between celebrating diversity, on the one hand, and
instilling a
cohesive shared ethos, on the other. To what extent can or
should schools
promote the kind of diversity that is reflective of the broader
society? If
clothing is a significant part of some individuals’ identity, are
schools
obliged to accommodate their requests and alter established
uniform
Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007
r 2007 The Author

Journal compilation r 2007 Journal of the Philosophy of
Education Society of Great Britain. Published by Blackwell
Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
policies? By allowing certain exemptions to some individuals
and groups,
do schools privilege some affiliations and associations over
others? Do we
also undermine other arguably important values that may be
linked to the
existence of uniform policies? Symbolic clothing raises, then, a
number of
dilemmas for the common school.
What is considered symbolic clothing is not without debate. I
start from
the position that symbolic clothing is a piece of clothing (or
accessory)
that signifies a part of an individual’s identity. Most commonly,
symbolic
clothing is tied to religious items of dress that form part of a
person’s
identity. The symbol may have varying levels of significance to
an
individual. It may be simply an outward expression of what one
believes,
or it may be more like an essential part of one’s identity. In the
latter
instance, and especially where the item of clothing has religious
significance, its removal may be seen as compromising a part of
oneself.
Symbolic clothing, however, can have a significance that is
other than

religious, a significance that is political or social. Wearing
black may be
tied to many different things. For instance, it has been
connected to Goths,
or to bereavement, and it may be a gesture towards the black
armbands of
the IRA. Similarly, wearing a piece of ‘gang wear’ is a strong
symbol of
allegiance to a particular group or cult. Individuals may wear a
particular
coloured ribbon to express their support for associations or
movements, as
in the case of the pink ribbon for breast cancer or ‘Make
Poverty History’
wristbands. All such symbols fall under the umbrella of
symbolic clothing.
While I have noted three general categories of symbolic
clothing—
religious, political and social—the role of symbolic clothing
may cross
between these categories in such a way that in many cases
distinctions
between the three categories may not exist. In France and
England, for
example, the wearing of the hijab is not only a symbol of one’s
particular
religious affiliation: it has increasingly become a political
symbol, as a
sign of solidarity against the state’s decision to curtail Muslim
dress in the
public sphere. Moreover, the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, for
example,
suggests that politics like everything else exists only beneath
the broad
umbrella of religion.1

Widely divergent views are presented about how to deal with
symbolic
clothing. France’s legislation seems to be at one end of the
spectrum,
while Canada’s protection of ethnic minorities, with its notion
of
‘reasonable accommodation’, lies at the other (Shariff, 2006).2
Other
countries muddle through with widely varying views and
decisions, which
are often erratic and inconsistent from one case to the next.
And, with very
few exceptions, few guidelines are available to help educators
and policy
analysts to deal with these matters in a more consistent way. If
guidelines
are developed, as has happened in England with the initiative of
the
Department for Children, Schools and Families regarding
symbolic dress
and uniform policies (DCSF, 2007), the guidelines tend to be
ambiguous,
at best. Decisions regarding dress rest primarily with those who
are in
office at a particular time, and this is so in the cases of
politicians, judges
and educators. And if these people change by the time the next
challenge
about clothing is brought to the fore, so do the decisions about
how to deal
644 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author

Education Society of Great Britain
with the issue. The reasons given for banning various forms of
clothing
differ drastically both between and within nations, and the only
thing that
is clear is that there has not been a definitive way to proceed.
The
hodgepodge of precedents from various schools, districts, legal
courts and
states leaves the lay-person, the professional educator and the
policy-
maker ill at ease about what should be done about symbolic
clothing in
schools.
In an attempt to shed some light on this issue, I examine various
justifications commonly used in banning symbolic clothing. I
return to the
concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ and suggest that, by
using this
principle as a guideline, it is possible to reduce the numerous
reasons used
in banning clothing to four main considerations: 1) whether the
clothing
creates health and safety concerns; 2) whether the clothing is
oppressive to
oneself or to others; 3) whether the clothing significantly
inhibits the
educational aims of the school; and 4) whether the clothing is
essential to
a person’s identity. These four principles provide some basic
guidelines
for schools to assist them in setting the boundaries of symbolic

clothing
without becoming too heavy-handed and arbitrary. I begin by
considering
common reasons used for curtailing symbolic clothing.
REASON ONE: TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC SPHERE
France has taken the lead in preserving the civic republican
tradition by
banning religious symbolic clothing, although it is not the only
nation to
create such legislation. Turkey’s stance against headscarves,
particularly
in a largely Muslim country, is a direct attempt forcibly to make
the
country more secular (and arguably more Western) in order to
parallel its
counterparts in the Europe it aspires to join. Trevor Phillips’
remarks
about England needing to inculcate a sense of ‘Britishness’
speak to a
concern to create a stronger national identity (Phillips, 2005).
Given that
these are in their different ways moves towards a stronger
national
identity, one needs first to ask whether such an identity is
desirable or
possible. If it is desirable, the second question then becomes
whether
banning symbolic clothing will help create that identity. Let us
begin with
the first question.
Whether one wishes to argue in favour of preserving the civic
republican tradition in France, protecting secularisation in
Turkey or

developing a sense of ‘Britishness’ in England, what each
policy seems to
promote is the concept of a commonly shared identity amongst
its
citizenry—at least in the public sphere. The assumption is that
having a
common identity will help foster a more cohesive and stable
society.
Shared norms and values help to create this level of
cohesiveness. Michael
Walzer, for instance, suggests:
Every substantive account of justice is a local account . . . One
characteristic above all is central to my argument. We are (all
of us)
culture-producing creatures; we make and inhabit meaningful
worlds.
Since there is no way to rank and order these worlds with
respect to their
What Not To Wear 645
r 2007 The Author
understanding of social goods, we do justice to men and women
by
respecting their particular creations . . . . Justice is rooted in the
distinct
understandings of places, honors, jobs, things of all sorts that
constitute a
shared way of life. To override those understandings is (always)
to act

unjustly (Walzer, 1983, p. 314).
What is central to Walzer’s argument is that shared cultural
under-
standings rest with the political community. We understand our
fellow
citizens through the meanings that we share, without which we
cannot
come to agreement about the principles that provide the
foundation for a
political structure.
The case of the Netherlands casts light on this claim. It is
generally
agreed that the Netherlands has held progressive political
principles that
reflect and underpin the shared political norms and values of its
citizens.
The threat to this political culture perceived by some as a result
of the
increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants seems to give added
weight to
the need to protect those shared norms and values. Ironically,
the
protection of its progressive political values has meant stricter
legislation
against the niqab for Muslim women and a conservative
backlash about
tightening up immigration into the country.
The common criticism of Walzer’s claim is that suggesting that
there is
a particular political culture assumes too homogeneous a picture
of
culture. It silences or represses those on the fringes, whether
women,

ethnic minorities or children. And it paints a picture of a culture
that is
somewhat ossified—of a political culture that is rarely if ever
challenged
but rather taken for granted as the status quo. Yet Walzer’s
argument for a
shared political culture does resonate to some degree. It seems
reasonable
to suggest that a minimum level of shared values is required in
order that
people contribute to and abide by the political rules and
regulations that
govern a society. As Joseph Carens points out, Walzer does not
suggest
that a political community is all-encompassing. One can have a
shared
political culture without it assuming all of one’s cultural life.
So long as
we acknowledge ‘(1) some range of morally permissible
implementations
on any given account of the principles and (2) some range of
reasonable
disagreement about how to interpret the principles themselves’,
we can
have some sympathy for Walzer’s arguments (Carens, 2000, p.
28). The
minimum threshold of a common political structure seems worth
pursuing
and protecting.
So if we agree to a certain extent that there is value in
developing a shared
common identity, at least at the political level (as is argued by
the French
government), does it then follow that banning symbolic clothing
will help in

this cause? It is one thing to suggest that we wish to develop a
shared
political culture and that within this shared framework
principles may be
debated and discussed. It is another to suggest that banning
symbolic
clothing will be a significant factor in reducing friction amongst
its citizens
and in creating a more cohesive society with more shared
understanding.
If France provides us with any telling sign of the effects of such
judgements, it is that the initial suspension of the three girls
wearing
646 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author
headscarves only exacerbated the tension between the Muslim
commu-
nities and the French government. The recent legislation against
religious
symbols does not appear to have brought various religious
groups together
under the larger political civic republican umbrella. To suggest
that a
neutral space can be achieved by simply removing symbolic
clothing
seems both naı̈ ve and superficial (Gereluk, 2005). Further, it
closes off an
important debate in schools about how individuals can live

together in an
increasingly diverse and plural society. Instead, it ostracises
and
marginalises religious people, and in particular Muslims who
have been
portrayed negatively in the media, creating more tensions and
hostilities.
The race riots of November 2006 across France are evidence of
this
(Gereluk and Race, 2007). The focus on symbolic clothing
seems both
misplaced and inflammatory, and it deflects attention from the
larger
political discussion that needs to occur about the inequitable
conditions
suffered by many minority groups, whose members frequently
live below
the poverty line, face a greater chance of unemployment and
experience
discrimination on a regular basis. How can a society bring
together such
diverse groups of individuals when it does not tackle the
inequitable and
unfair treatment amongst these individuals? It is true that a
debate must
occur, but the debate must, if we are to come to some closer,
reasonable
consensus, include at its heart such issues of equality
(Ramadan, 2007).
Otherwise, it will perpetuate the unfair privilege enjoyed by
dominant
over minority groups. While banning symbolic clothing may be
an easy
policy to bring into law in attempting to foster the larger
political culture
of a society, it ignores the inequitable conditions that may be

causing such
tensions amongst groups.
Further, in enforcing a ‘neutral’ space in schools in order to
protect the
political values of the society, it limits in a significant way the
discussion
of what it means to live in a society that combines the
aspiration of a
shared political community with the reality of diversity. The
tension
between political and cultural community is one that needs to be
addressed—not swept under the carpet.
REASON TWO: SYMBOLS MAY BE OFFENSIVE
A common reason used for curtailing symbolic clothing is that
it may be
considered offensive. However, trying to decide what is deemed
too
offensive to wear delves into tricky territory when it comes to
schools. The
fact that girls wear the niqab may be considered offensive
because they do
not show their facial expressions to other people. Conversely,
the girls
wearing the niqab may find it offensive and humiliating to
uncover their
faces. Political slogans on t-shirts may offend those of a
different political
perspective, and yet schools may find it perfectly acceptable for
girls to
wear bikinis to promote school-sanctioned car-washes—
something that
may be found socially offensive by others (Gereluk,
forthcoming, p. 70).

The criteria for what is deemed offensive shifts from place to
place, along
with the shared norms and values of the particular community
and context.
r 2007 The Author
Dress codes that ban certain clothing often provide some
principles
about the appropriateness of clothing in schools, but that too
seems
arbitrary. In schools, G-strings, thongs and exposed bra straps
for girls,
and, for boys, baseball caps, ‘hoodies’ and jeans that do not
cover boxer
shorts are currently on the hit list of unacceptable and offensive
forms of
dress. Yet again the list drastically varies from school to school
and from
locality to locality. Moreover, the practicalities of enforcement
in schools
create further complications and inconsistencies.
The question of what is ‘reasonable’ is at stake here, especially
when
banning symbolic clothing may curtail an individual’s freedom
of
expression. A general consensus seems to exist that limiting
freedom of
expression is appropriate when physical harm is caused to other

individuals. However, Joel Feinberg (1988) suggests that this
may set
the threshold too high, and he instead argues that limits can be
placed on
freedom of expression when that expression is offensive to
other people.
How that is determined may involve the consideration of a
number of
factors, such as the extent, duration and social value of the
action in
question, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of
the agent,
the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and
the
general interest of the community at large (see also van Mill,
2002).
Feinberg’s offence principle may extend then to the wearing of
symbolic
clothing that is offensive to others.
The offence principle provides some guidance in deciding the
kinds of
circumstances where it may be appropriate to limit freedom of
expression.
Yet, a grey area still exists over where exactly that line is
drawn. To
complicate the issue further, the parameters may change
depending on the
norms and behaviour of a particular community. For instance, in
an Amish
community girls’ skirts may be well below the knee, in
accordance with
the modesty required by this faith community. In another
community,
girls’ hemlines may follow the current fashion of knee-length or
just

above the knee. And in many cases, girls may not be required to
wear a
skirt to school. The values of the community, the number of
people to
whom offence might be given, and the extent of that offence,
will all be
factors that help to determine the appropriateness of attire.
Schools have banned political t-shirts in the United States
because of
their offensive nature (Gereluk, 2006). Two such cases were
those of
Bretton Barber, who wore a t-shirt stating that George Bush was
an
international terrorist (ACLU, 2003), and Timothy Gies, whose
shirts
regularly displayed various symbols signifying peace or
anarchy, and an
upside-down American flag (ACLU, 2004). If we apply the
offence
principle to these cases, it would be hard for a school to argue
that the t-
shirts caused such offence as to warrant their ban. Neither
school had a
uniform policy. Regarding the questions of extent and duration,
the boys
wore the t-shirts to school on an inconsistent and irregular
basis, and so
these matters are hard to gauge. The t-shirts did not cause a
major
disruption to the education in the school. The t-shirts did not
appear to be
morally offensive to a large number of people. Finally, the
intensity of the
offence was questionable. Wearing a t-shirt that provides a
general

648 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author
political message such as ‘anarchy’ or ‘peace’ does not seem de
facto
offensive. Similarly, whilst the t-shirt against George W. Bush
may have
been morally offensive to some, it is not clear that the intensity
of the
offence is on the same level as other morally offensive symbols
(such as
the swastika or the white hooded Ku Klux Klan gown) where
the
offensiveness is generally agreed across society.
What is considered offensive is difficult to ascertain without
appropriate
consideration of what it means to offend or to take offence.
Robin Barrow
contends that offence is used too readily, whether we are
worried about
offending others or whether we are taking offence ourselves. A
number of
distinctions are required before one can determine whether a
behaviour or
action ought to be considered offensive. For instance, the
particular smell
or taste of blue cheese may be considered offensive—in that it
is
displeasing to particular bodily senses. This, however, is very

different
from taking offensive action as: ‘1) meaning to offend; 2)
actually giving
offence, and 3) behaving in a manner that is likely to cause
offence (or, of
course, any combination of these)’ (Barrow, 2005, p. 268). For
Barrow,
the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of condemning
behaviour
or actions that may offend. Unlike the development of
underpinning
values of respect within the larger principle of toleration, taking
offence
‘involves a refusal to show tolerance, to allow freedom, or to
play fair’
(p. 274). Barrow’s remarks endorse the view that the complexity
of using
the offence principle is far from clear in setting the parameters
for
appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and actions.
Graham Haydon makes the further point that we must consider
what it
is that is being offended, ‘namely the sensibilities of human
beings’
(Haydon, 2006, p. 21). What is inherently offensive must be
considered in
light of the individuals it may offend—and that depends from
individual to
individual. We need to make two further distinctions, suggests
Haydon.
The first involves the person’s experience. It is one thing to be
upset or
hurt by an event; it is another to be upset by an action for which
someone
else was directly responsible (p. 24). The second is that we need

to attend
to the offended person’s ‘action or inaction’ (ibid.) and consider
whether
that person was hurt by the other’s action or, conversely,
whether the
inaction of the offended person led to the feeling of offence.
Both doing
something or not doing something may duly cause offence.
Haydon’s
example of the French Revolution illuminates this discussion.
While most
individuals in this day and age would find the idea of watching
people
have their heads chopped off offensive, most Parisians of the
time, inured
to the numerous beheadings, did not find the use of the
guillotine
offensive. ‘Inherent offensiveness’ must take into consideration
the nature
of our moral sensibilities. Haydon argues then that moral
sensibilities must
be cultivated in schools in order to make judgments about the
moral
implications of various kinds of offence. He further goes on to
suggest that
while judgment must be used over what is to be considered
offensive, the
conception of the place of this that Barrow advances is limited
in its
appropriateness and range of relevance. Haydon contends that
some
people may just have a propensity to become more easily
offended. One

r 2007 The Author
does not choose to be offended: one merely becomes offended.
While one
can attempt consciously and deliberately to suppress one’s
feelings, the
response will remain an emotional one, not entirely controlled
by rational
and deliberate thought. This does not mean, as Barrow suggests,
that the
individual taking offence is automatically ‘being intolerant’;
that is open
to interpretation and debate. What is offensive shifts and moves
between
individuals, groups and societies.
This theoretical debate illuminates the complexities involved in
defining
what is offensive, to whom it may be offensive, the degree to
which it may
be offensive and whether it is reasonable to take offence.
Despite the
problematic nature of offence, it has generally been applied to
considerations of appropriate and inappropriate symbolic
clothing. What
becomes clear in this debate that ensues is where to draw the
line. The
principles that Feinberg puts forward provide some useful
distinctions, but
these too can be easily swayed by the political and social
climate of the
local community. And if the pendulum has swung drastically, as

Barrow
argues, then is that not worth challenging, despite perceived
popular
endorsement? ‘Offence’, as we have seen, is a slippery term that
is
increasingly being used too readily to ban symbolic clothing. A
more
useful distinction may be whether what should be banned is
what is
considered ‘oppressive’ rather than what is considered
‘offensive’.
REASON THREE: SYMBOLS MAY BE OPPRESSIVE
Much symbolic clothing is banned in the belief that the
particular
symbolic clothing is not only offensive but oppressive.
Oppression is
commonly understood as involving action that causes harm to
another.
Physical harm is the most blatant form of oppression, yet
oppression can
take more subtle forms. Feinberg argues that oppression is ‘a
setback to
one’s interest’ particularly when that individual has a stake in
the action in
question (Feinberg, 1995). Oppression can take the form of
experiencing
something that is against one’s particular best interests, or it
can involve
injustice, and it may also entail prolonged, severe physical or
mental
suffering.
Jean Harvey moves beyond Feinberg’s argument and contends
that

oppression involves ‘a systematic and inappropriate control of
people by
those with more power’ (Harvey, 1999, p. 37). The act need not
be
intentional, as often the individuals perpetrating the oppression
may have
little to no awareness of their oppression. And even if the
oppressed does
take notice of the oppressive act, the oppressed may choose not
to
challenge it—perhaps because it may cause others distress or
because it
may ‘cause a scene’. Alternatively, the oppressed may
internalise the
oppression through ‘long-standing and social shared biases’ (p.
46). The
oppressed become, in effect, disempowered, excluded and
unable to
challenge the perpetrator.
If the act is unintentional, and the oppressed may not have any
very
clear awareness of the oppressive action, how can this principle
provide us
650 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author
with particular guidance regarding symbolic clothing in
schools? In very
explicit cases, it seems quite clear that an explicit symbol may

intentionally suppress or harm others. Gang and cult symbols
may be
designed to intimidate, to bully and to inflict harm on others.
The potential
victims may be those from competing gangs or simply those
who do not
belong to any group. The banning of such symbolic clothing
seems both
appropriate and justified.
The Confederate flag in the American South is a controversial
symbol.
Historically, several versions of the Confederate flag were used
following
the American Civil War by the Confederate States of America.
The most
common Confederate flag consists of a blue cross with 13 stars
inside, on
top of a red background. Despite its wide use by Southern
American
States, its symbolism has heavy overtones of those states’
complicity in
slavery and in the subsequent racial segregation that endured for
almost a
century. The flag became a symbol for those who opposed the
civil rights
movement, particularly when civil rights activists challenged
the racial
segregation laws. While the Confederate flag’s historical
significance
cannot be ignored in American schools, the racist overtones in
the symbol
must be acknowledged. In this case, one might be able to justify
its use in
American history and acknowledge the Confederate flag’s
importance in

textbooks. However, due to its continued role in the oppression
of African
Americans, wearing this symbol in the form of symbolic
clothing should
be viewed as unacceptable. Whether the individual who wears
the symbol
is aware of this significance should not be a consideration. The
Confederate flag is explicitly oppressive to African Americans.
The
intention of the wearer need not be a factor.
Muslim dress is trickier terrain. Many would suggest that
Muslim dress
is oppressive for girls. And if we follow Harvey’s criteria,
intention does
not need to play a part, nor does the person need to feel
oppressed. Context
and location are important here. It may be the case that in some
countries,
Muslim dress may be oppressive, linked with a political regime
or
dictatorship. The Taliban in Afghanistan provide a notable
example of the
forcing of women to wear strict Muslim dress. If, however, we
consider
the recent increase in the numbers of Muslim girls wearing the
hijab in
France, it is probable that the girls chose so to dress largely in
reaction to
the school suspensions and by way of growing political
resistance to the
French legislation (Gereluk, forthcoming, p. 121). There is
nothing to
suggest that—all of a sudden—French Muslim girls were being
forced to
wear the hijab by their families and communities. It is more

likely that the
girls decided to band together, perhaps as a sign of their
religious
conviction, and perhaps as a sign of solidarity against the
government. In
the case of Shabina Begum, her parents were already deceased
when she
decided to wear the jilbab to school. Her resilience in the face
of media
attention and when confronted by is the result of her believing
that she was
oppressed by the ban.
It is not enough to suggest that individuals may be oppressed by
certain
clothing, one needs to show supporting evidence to make the
case. Such
opposition to symbolic clothing has largely been directed
against Islamic
r 2007 The Author
clothing for girls. But unless there is significant evidence to
suggest the
contrary, it is difficult to suggest that many Muslim girls are
oppressed, at
least in the Western countries to which I have alluded. And if
there is a
suspicion of oppression occurring, it is the burden of the state
to

demonstrate it.
REASON FOUR: SYMBOLS MAY BE DISRUPTIVE
Much symbolic clothing in the United States has been banned
on the
grounds that it may cause significant disruption. What is
potentially
disruptive often overlaps with what is considered offensive.
Some order is
obviously necessary in order for schools to carry out their
educational
mandate—that is a given. And minimising actions that may
counter this
basic requirement seems to be an appropriate response. If a
piece of
clothing creates tensions, unrest and instability, it may be
justified for
schools to consider banning the offending clothing. There is,
however, a
fine line between what may be disruptive and what is disruptive.
Is it
appropriate for schools to err on the side of caution or tolerance
regarding
what may be considered potentially disruptive? In Northern
Ireland, for
example, black armbands were banned in schools as they
signified
allegiance to and solidarity with the IRA. The probability that
the
armbands would cause unrest amongst pupils, parents and the
community
was so great that most would agree that the ban was warranted.
Banning a
t-shirt with a political message (as in many American cases) is,
by

contrast, more questionable. While the t-shirt may cause
offence, would
this be likely to lead to physical violence, insurgence or
uprisings in
schools? The particular context and circumstances are
paramount.
An American landmark case makes this explicit. In 1965, a
group of
students and parents in Des Moines, Iowa, held a meeting in the
private
home of one of their members to plan a series of events and
actions to
show their public opposition to the Vietnam War, one of which
was for the
children and adults to wear black armbands in protest against
the war.
Having heard of the meeting and its proposed actions, the
school adopted
the policy that any student seen wearing a black armband would
be asked
to remove it, and if this was not done the student would be
suspended until
they complied with the new policy. On 16 and 17 December,
three
students wore the black armband to school, and they were
suspended until
they complied with the policy, which the private meeting had
stated would
be after New Year’s Day. The families challenged the
suspension and the
case went before the United States Supreme Court (Tinker v.
Des Moines
Independent School District). The Supreme Court argued that
student
expression should be protected unless the behaviour in question

was likely
to ‘materially and substantially interfere with the requirements
of
appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’ (393 U.S.
503,
1969). And while the judges acknowledged the school’s
apprehension of
potential disruption or violence escalating from the armbands,
the judges
noted that ‘undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance
is not
652 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author
enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression’ (ibid.).
This
landmark case changed the legal scope for constitutional rights
for
students. The US Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker
proclaimed that
‘students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate’ (ibid.). Potential disruption
is not
enough to warrant a curtailment of symbolic clothing.
In trying to draw some distinctions, we must also consider the
degree to
which the clothing is likely to cause disruption. It is not enough
to suggest

that particular clothing may cause disruption. Even if the
symbolic
clothing in question causes massive disruption, one also needs
to consider
whether the disruption to the school should still be tolerated.
Let us
consider hypothetically a situation where a number of girls are
wearing the
hijab, in a largely white school. The school finds that the hijab
has caused
social divisions amongst pupils and parents, and considers
banning the
clothing lest it cause too much disruption. Is that the correct
response in
this case? Even if the piece of symbolic clothing is disruptive, it
is
reasonable to take the view that the disruption is a necessary
step in
challenging the stereotypes and intolerances in society.
Should schools attempt to remain apolitical by taking a stance
of
neutrality on larger societal issues? While the disruption may
cause
instability in a school, it is appropriate to consider the unrest an
opportunity to discuss and open up debate about contentious
issues.
Unfortunately as of late, there has been a tendency to move
away from
anything that may be considered controversial. Symbolic
clothing is a
target for attack in schools, but it is not the only one. If
symbolic clothing
calls into question the perceived norms and values of society,
why is this
considered a threat to the stability of schools? In the absence of

any
demonstrable significant and potentially violent threat, school
authorities
have been too ready to avoid confrontation and controversy, and
they have
preferred to stick their heads in the sand. This denial of open
debate
amounts to the loss of an opportunity to come to a better
understanding of
the complexities of major current issues of our time.
MOVING FORWARD: WHAT CAN SCHOOLS REASONABLY
DO?
The way in which Canada has dealt with the problem of
defining the
parameters can provide us with some guidance. The idea of
‘reasonable
accommodation’ takes a proactive stance with regard to how
best to adapt
institutions in order to redress the inequitable treatment of those
in the
minority who are particularly disadvantaged. The onus is on
those who
wish to maintain the status quo to provide clear evidence to
suggest that
allowing symbolic clothing is likely to cause undue hardship on
others.
The criterion of offensiveness does not hold enough weight
because
judgments on such matters are always relative. How then do we
create
parameters of acceptable and appropriate clothing in schools?
Clearly on
the strength of the present argument, limits to clothing should

exist in
schools. Three considerations for both dress codes and uniform
policies
seem appropriate for judging clothing permissible or
impermissible:
r 2007 The Author
1) Does the clothing create health and safety concerns?
2) Is the clothing oppressive to oneself or to others?
3) Does the clothing significantly inhibit the educational aims
of the
school?
A fourth consideration then applies to schools where there is an
already
established uniform policy:
4) Is the clothing essential to one’s identity?
Let us turn to the first factor, that of health and safety concerns.
It seems
perfectly reasonable to curtail clothing that may cause concern
from this
point. Loose or baggy clothing may be a hazard during science
experiments,
particularly if the science class uses Bunsen burners. This
pertains to all
forms of clothing, not just symbolic clothing. This does not

mean that the
clothing must be banned, but it does suggest that it must be
altered.
Reasonable accommodation again suggests that small alterations
and
adjustments may allow pupils to wear certain symbolic clothing
that does
not pose a danger to themselves or others. For example, a small
alteration
on the hijab where, in place of pins, elastic is used to keep the
head
covering in place easily attends to the safety of the pupil and
other students.
The banning of clothing that is oppressive to oneself or to
others seems
clearly justified. Racist slogans identifying gang culture are all
within the
boundaries of unacceptable dress. But if we follow Harvey’s
argument of
civilised oppression, we can extend this to clothing that exploits
and
suppresses certain individuals and groups. In this way, the
principle of
oppression can be useful in more subtle cases of the
inappropriate
mistreatment of individuals and groups.
The final consideration is whether the clothing significantly
inhibits the
educational aims of the school. Again, Muslim clothing is
usually targeted
because of the way that it supposedly prevents girls from taking
part in
various athletic activities. This, however, is a common
misperception. In

most cases, Muslim faith schools have addressed this either by
altering the
clothing in order that girls can participate in various physical
activities, or
by preventing males from viewing the activity. Such small
alterations then
allow Muslim girls to take part physical activity without
compromising
their faith, and they do not compromise the educational aims of
the
curriculum.
There is a stronger case to curtail the niqab, where only the eyes
are
visible. It would need to be argued that facial expressions are
crucial for
interaction and communication in school. And while this is not
be
essential in all subjects, it might plausibly be suggested that
seeing the
mouth and facial expressions are essential to learning a
language. Seeing
how the mouth forms various vowels and consonants is a vital
component
for learning a language. Similarly, if one assumes that facial
expressions
are crucial to interacting with other people, and if interacting
with other
pupils is an essential part of attending school, then arguably,
the niqab
would significantly hinder this social development for the
particular
654 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author

individual. Such extremes in clothing are rare, however, and the
burden
again must be on the school to show that the piece of clothing
creates a
strong obstacle to the child’s learning and development.
Action against clothing that has the potential to disrupt the
educational
aims of the school needs to be taken only as a last resort, and
even then
substantial evidence must be provided to show that the
‘offending’ clothing
will significantly inhibit the educational aims of the school. As
I have
repeatedly mentioned, it is not enough to suggest that the
symbolic clothing
is a potential source of disruption: it needs to be shown that it
will cause the
kind of disruption that will prevent the school from fulfilling its
educational
mandate of the school or from ensuring the general safety of
pupils and staff.
Dress codes and uniform policies must take the first three
considerations
into account particularly when symbolic clothing may be a
developmental
hindrance and a safety hazard to oneself or others. The final
considera-
tion—that of whether the symbolic clothing is essential to an
individual—

becomes an additional criterion in determining whether the
symbolic
clothing should be accommodated within the uniform policy.
One may
justify a uniform policy for its perceived benefits of instilling
pride and
fostering a collective ethos in the school. Yet, uniform policies
must
acknowledge and recognise that symbolic clothing may also be
an
essential part of an individual’s identity. Unless the clothing in
question
poses a serious health and safety risk, is oppressive to that
individual or to
others, or significantly inhibits the educational aims of the
school, it
should be integrated into the school uniform policy.
CONCLUSION
The heavy-handedness of schools in banning potentially
offensive or
disruptive clothing has not helped in providing any clear policy
for what is
to be deemed permissible. Some schools (and some countries)
appear to
have particular targets for symbolic clothing. France has taken a
hard
stance on religious symbols, while the United States has
generally targeted
political and social symbols. In many of the cases, ethnic
minorities seem
particularly targeted in contrast to mainstream, established,
Christian-
Judaic religions. And certain symbols may, more often than not,
have a

blind eye turned to them. For instance, Christian jewellery is
usually
acceptable in uniform policies while other symbols (for
instance, chastity
rings3) may not be. The arbitrariness of how the lines are drawn
seems
both unjust and discriminatory in many of the instances,
cloaked as it is
behind ambiguous, rhetorical school policies. These shifting and
changing
stances provide little assistance to other schools that face
similar
dilemmas. Similarly they exacerbate relations between groups,
particu-
larly racial and ethnic groups who may already feel
marginalised from
mainstream society.
Creating flexible, yet consistent, guidelines that cut across all
religious,
social and political divisions, and are based on the best interests
of
children, in the light of their physical, emotional and
developmental
r 2007 The Author
needs, is a sensible and pragmatic way in which to approach
symbolic
clothing. The criteria for such guidelines do not eliminate

individuals’
fundamental freedoms but offer reasonable parameters within
which
certain symbols may not be judged appropriate, at least in the
school
setting. This approach still allows the possibility for
implementing or
maintaining a uniform policy, should schools so wish.4
Correspondence: Dianne Gereluk, School of Education,
Roehampton
University, Roehampton Lane, London, SW15 5PJ, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
NOTES
1. Many thanks to Mark Halstead for providing this example.
Indeed in many cases there is little or
no distinction between religious and political symbols.
2. Reasonable accommodation is based on the premise that the
state has a duty to adjust,
accommodate and make alternative arrangements for particular
individuals or groups in order to
reduce discriminatory practices. It has been used in a variety of
specific cases but has also been
applied in the defining of the parameters of symbolic clothing
in Canadian schools.
3. In 2007, Lydia Playfoot, a sixteen year old girl, was
suspended for wearing a ‘purity ring’,
symbolising chastity, to school. Wearing the ring is a symbol by

girls to show that they have
decided to be virgins until marriage. The High Court of England
ruled in favour of the school
noting that the ring was not an essential part of Playfoot’s faith.
The ring was not ‘intimately
linked’ to the belief in chastity before marriage, nor was she
under any obligation to wear the ring
(Gereluk, forthcoming, p. 91).
4. I wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union (2003) Judge Rules in Favor of
Michigan Student’s Right to Wear
Anti-War T-Shirt to School, Free Speech, (October 3)
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/
FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13913&c=87. (Accessed 5 November
2005).
America Civil Liberties Union (2004) Michigan School
Reverses Decision to Suspend Student
from wearing ‘Anarchy’ shirt, Free Speech,
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.
cfm?ID=15672&c=159. (May 10, 2004) (Accessed 5 November
2005).

Barrow, R. (2005) On the Duty of Not Taking Offense, Journal
of Moral Education, 24.3,
pp. 265–275.
Carens, J. (2000) Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A
Contextual Exploration of Justice as
Evenhandedness (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Department For Children, Schools And Families (DCSF) (2007)
DCSF Guidance to Schools on
School Uniform and Related Policies,
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/u/
uniform/ (Accessed 10 October 2007).
Feinberg, J. (1988) Harm to Others (New York/Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Feinberg, J. (1995) Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion,
in: J. Feinberg and H. Gross (eds)
Philosophy of Law, 5th edn. (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth
Publishing Company).
Gereluk, D. (2005) Should Muslim Headscarves be Banned in
French Schools?, Theory and
Research in Education, 3.3, pp. 259–271.
Gereluk, D. (2006) ‘Why Can’t I Wear This?!’ Banning
Symbolic Clothing in Schools, Philosophy
of Education Yearbook, pp. 106–114.

Gereluk, D. (forthcoming, 2008) Symbolic Clothing in Schools
(London, New York, Continuum).
Gereluk, D. and Race, R. (2007) Multicultural Tensions in
England, France and Canada:
Contrasting Approaches and Consequences, International
Studies in Sociology of Education,
17.1&2, pp. 113–128.
Harvey, J. (1999) Civilised Oppression (Lanham, CO, Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.).
656 D. Gereluk
r 2007 The Author
Haydon, G. (2006) On the Duty of Educating Respect: A
Response to Robin Barrow, Journal of
Moral Education, 35.1, pp. 19–32.
Phillips, T. (2005) After 7/7: Sleepwalking to Segregation:
Speech given at the Commission for
Racial Equality, 29 September 2005 (London, Commission for
Racial Equality).
Ramadan, T. (2007) Trying to Understand Radicalization and
Extremism: Keynote address

presented at the Education and Extremism Conference, London,
England, 5 July.
Shariff, S. (2006) Balancing Competing Rights: A Stakeholder
Model for Democratic Schools,
Canadian Journal of Education, 29.2, pp. 476–496.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 89 S. Ct.
733 (1969); 393 U.S. 503, 1969.
van Mill, D. (2002) Freedom of Speech, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.
stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/freedom-speech/.
(Accessed 20 November 2005).
Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of Justice: a defence of pluralism
and equality (New York, Basic
Books).
r 2007 The Author
Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research
2007, Vol. 1, 31-39 ISSN: 1935-3308

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL UNIFORMS IN CREATING AN
ACADEMICALLY MOTIVATING CLIMATE:
DO UNIFORMS INFLUENCE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS?
John A. Huss
Northern Kentucky University
This study sought to examine the perceptions of a group of
public
elementary school teachers toward a new school uniform policy
adopted
for their building. Interviews and non-participant observations
were the
primary sources of data collection, and open coding was utilized
to name
and categorize basic concepts, themes, and other phenomena.
Teachers
in the study perceived that uniforms enhanced the learning
environment
by encouraging integrality among students, enriching the
quality of
interactions between faculty and students and improving
discipline. The
researcher also employed attribution theory to consider how the
social

perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for
events.
Social learning theory rests on the premise that human beings
act toward
things on the basis of the meanings those things have for them,
and that
such meanings arise out of the interaction of the individual with
others.
TThis study sought to examine the percep-
tions of a group of public elementary school
teachers toward a new school uniform policy
adopted for their building. I was particularly
interested in the teachers‘ impressions of the
overall school climate, defined as "the sum total
of, and dynamic interactions among, the psycho-
social, academic and physical dimensions of a
learning environment" (Haynes, 1996, p. 1).
While the school uniform has long been a
cornerstone of parochial and private schools, the
interest in uniforms for public schools gained its
first perceptible momentum in 1994 when the

Long Beach Unified School District in Long
Beach, California, adopted such a strategy for its
John A. Huss, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the College of
Education and Human Services, Educational Specialties, at
Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, Kentucky.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to John Huss at [email protected]
72,000 elementary and middle school students.
From these embryonic steps, interest has
remained steady, leading to school uniform
requirements in New York City; Dade County,
Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Norfolk, Virginia;
Oakland, California; Charleston, South Carolina;
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Despite the trend, educators and the public
are clearly divided over the implementation of
such policies in public schools. Advocates for
school uniforms enumerate potential benefits

such as decreasing theft of designer clothing,
preventing gang colors, reducing peer pressure,
and erasing socioeconomic differences (U.S.
Department of Education, 1996) while oppo-
nents point to infringement on First Amendment
rights and students‘ natural tendencies to
experiment with their identities (Cohn & Siegal,
1996).
Despite the controversy, the power of the
uniform as a shared social symbol to instill a
mailto:[email protected]
32 HUSS
sense of group membership and encourage con-
formity to group norms has intrigued school
administrators seeking efficient strategies for
minimizing student jealousies and discrimina-
tion. School uniforms are tangible; they are seen

as a concrete and visible means of restoring
order to the classrooms. As such, social learning
theory rests on the premise human beings act
toward things on the basis of the meanings those
things have for them, and that such meanings
arise out of the interaction of the individual with
others. To many, uniforms conjure up visions of
private schools, which are perceived as safe,
secure, and orderly learning environments.
Extending knowledge in this area is
extremely important because the overall school
climate has as much to do with learning,
productive work, and self-concept as does
anything else in the educational program. Of all
the stakeholders who impact a school setting, the
classroom teacher, by virtue of his/her role as
leader, speaker, diplomat, and disciplinarian,
bears the single greatest responsibility for

structuring optimal learning environments for
students who have wide ranges of abilities,
interests, and needs. It is the teacher who is
present in the everyday setting, immersed and
connected with the students and the various
interactions, which take place around them.
Many studies examining the relationship
between school uniforms and school climate
have relied on the input of school administrators
for the generation of data. For example, in a
national survey of elementary and middle school
principals conducted by The National
Association of Elementary School Principals
(2000), 10% of the 755 respondents said that
their schools already had adopted a uniform
policy and another 11% were considering the
concept.
One of the earliest qualitative studies by

Peters (1996) revealed a greater sense of student
respect, a decrease in discipline problems, and a
―sense of belonging‖ after Garfield School in
Stockton, California, initiated a school uniform
policy during the 1995-96 academic year.
Garfield, a K-6 magnet school with 325 stu-
dents, served as a source of pride and stability
within a crime ravaged neighborhood in inner
city Stockton. Likewise, Hoffler-Riddick and
Lassiter (1996) examined a mandatory school
uniform policy in Norfolk, Virginia, public
schools and found a dramatic decline in
discipline infractions, increased attendance, and
improvement in the overall instructional climate.
Gregory (1996) used the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory to compare schools from
uniform and non-uniform inner city middle
schools. The responses were significant for the

subscales Total Self, General Self, and School-
Academic, with students in the uniform school
providing more positive responses. Murray
(1997) conducted a survey among South
Carolina middle school students to test the effect
of school uniforms on perceived school
environment. Both a school with a preexisting
uniform policy and one without were surveyed.
Students in the uniform school rated the climate
as more positive in 9 out of 10 subscales.
Tucker (1999) administered the National
Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP) Comprehensive Assessment of School
Environments (CASE) School Climate Survey
to 27 teachers in four urban St. Paul, Minnesota
middle schools. Two schools had implemented
uniforms while two had dress codes. Teachers
described an improvement in peer relations and

perceived their school environment to be more
positive and conducive to learning when
uniforms were worn. After garnering data from
415 urban middle school students and 83
teachers, Wade and Stafford (2003) discovered
perceptions of school climate did not vary for
students across uniform policies, yet teachers
from schools requiring uniforms perceived lower
levels of gang violence.
Brunsma and Rockquemore (1998) offered a
dissenting opinion when they used 10th-grade
data from The National Educational
Longitudinal Study of 1988 to empirically test
the claims made by uniform advocates. The
findings indicated student uniforms have no
direct effect on substance use, behavioral
problems, or attendance. Contrary to current
discourse, the authors found a negative correla-

tion between uniforms and student academic
achievement. The uniforms may indirectly affect
school environment by providing a visible and
public symbol of commitment to school
improvement and reform. Bodine (2003) refuted
Brunsma and Rockquemore‘s (1998) findings by
pointing out that their use of sector analysis was
SCHOOL UNIFORMS 33
misleading and led to erroneous claims.
According to Bodine, the authors alleged
uniforms correlate negatively with academic
achievement, but data presented in their article
actually showed positive correlation between
uniforms and achievement for the total sample
and for all but one school sector.
Several trends emerged from the literature.
While socioeconomic status was never overtly

stated as a variable in any of the studies, the
majority of research took place in urban areas
with high incidence of gang activity, violence,
and drug use. Other elements such as age,
gender, and race/ethnicity were not isolated.
Also, middle schools were popular sites for data
collection, and the predominant research designs
were empirical.
A conspicuous lack of qualitative studies
reveals a need for face-to-face interaction, and
the opportunity for in-depth probing of this
phenomenon that may contain complex,
interwoven variables of school climate, which
are difficult to reduce to numbers. Hence, this
study sought to provide contextualization by
using the actors' perspectives to search induc-
tively for patterns. Listening to the impressions
of schoolteachers who are in the midst of a novel

and untried school uniform policy may prove
valuable to other practitioners and policy makers
considering the implementation of such a uni-
form policy in a public school.
Method
Participants and Setting
Research was conducted at a K-5 public
elementary school in a city with a population of
approximately 24,000 which is centrally located
in the heart of a larger metropolitan area near
Cincinnati, Ohio. At the time of data collection
(2004-05 academic year), the predominantly
Caucasian school had an enrollment of 397
students. The median household income for
families in the district was $20,988, and roughly
20% of the students in the school were
considered ―economically disadvantaged‖ (i.e.
students from families receiving financial

assistance). The average pupil-to-teacher ratio
was 17:1. Figures from the 2003-04 state
proficiency tests indicated 28% of fourth graders
passed all five sections of the test, compared to a
state average of 38%. The average student
attendance rate was 94.7%, compared to a state
average of 93.6% (Ohio Department of
Education, 2005). The site did not fit the typical
profile of a high-risk setting rife with gang
activity and aggression. Rather, uniforms were
being initiated in a working class neighborhood
elementary school with a school culture
arguably less immoderate than those enumerated
in the literature.
The participants were six Caucasian
elementary teachers, both male and female,
ranging in age from mid-20s to late 40s. The
teachers, Ms. Anderson (mid-40‘s), Ms. Barry

(mid-30‘s), Mr. Clark (mid-40‘s), Mr. Davis
(mid-20‘s), Ms. Evans (early 40‘s), and Ms.
Flanagan (late 40‘s), all pseudonyms, each had a
minimum of five years K-12 teaching
experience. The mean age of teachers at the
school is 32 with the average years of
experience at 16.2. In order to attain an equitable
blend of teachers, one teacher from each grade-
level K-5 participated in the process. No new
teachers had been hired for the school year, so
each of the participants taught at the school prior
to the implementation of the school uniform
policy.
These six teachers represented 25% of the
total school faculty. Two sampling strategies
were utilized. Because one teacher from each
grade level was interviewed, the premise that
underlies stratified purposive sampling was

employed. In short, stratified purposive sam-
pling illustrates characteristics of particular sub-
groups of interest and facilitates comparisons.
Next, under the umbrella of criterion-based
selection, what LeCompte and Preissle (1997)
refer to as ―typical case selection‖ was appro-
priate. In this procedure, the researcher develops
a profile of attributes possessed by an average
case (teachers had taught at the school the
previous year and would therefore be able to
comment on aspects of school uniforms before
and after the policy) and then seeks instances of
this case.
As a former P-12 teacher, I was familiar
with daily school routines, protocols, expecta-
tions and challenges, which enabled me to gain
the trust of the teachers. They quickly saw I was
there to record and learn, not make suggestions

or judgments. To accommodate teachers' sched-
34 HUSS
ules, interviews and observations were arranged
at different times and on various days, which
actually facilitated my ability to experience the
school and classrooms at diverse times and
junctures throughout the academic year.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study follows the interpretive tradition
of case research inasmuch as there is no
objective reality that can be discovered by
researchers and necessarily replicated by others
(Walsham 1993; Broadbent, Darke, & Shanks,
1998). Interpretivism aims to understand phe-
nomena from the point of view of participants
directly involved with the phenomenon under

study (Cavaye, 1996). No specific hypothesis
testing occurred. The symbolic paradigm
(attribution theory, in particular) is certainly an
element within this study inasmuch as the focal
point of teacher perceptions centers on a school
uniform, which can be viewed as a monolithic
identifier, or symbol of membership in a specific
group. Blumer (1957) insisted the meanings of
objects are primarily a property of behavior and
depend only secondarily upon the intrinsic
character of the objects themselves. Meanings,
furthermore, are constructed and reaffirmed in
social interaction; they are shaped largely by the
actual and anticipated responses of others.
Central to data collection in this study was
the use of interviews involving open-ended,
probing questions. Two interviewing approaches
were employed, both occurring at three-month

intervals: one-on-one and focus group. Accord-
ing to Gay and Airasian (2006), interviews have
a unique purpose, namely, to acquire data not
obtainable in any other way. There are certain
things which simply cannot be observed, includ-
ing past events, events that occur outside of the
researcher‘s sphere of observation, and mental
processes. One cannot observe, for example, the
way things ―used to be‖ before the school
uniform policy was introduced or what an
individual teacher ―is thinking‖ about school
uniforms.
The interview format was modeled after
what Denzin (1978) called a nonscheduled
standardized interview wherein the same ques-
tions and probes are used for all respondents, but
the order in which they are posed may be
changed according to how individuals react.

Patton (1990) referred to this type of interview
as a standardized open-ended interview. Despite
the structured nature of the interview(s),
participants were given great latitude in shaping
the content of the process; fixed alternative
questions were not utilized. Teachers were asked
to respond to questions such as: What do you
like about school uni-forms? What do you dislike
about school uni-forms? What changes, if any,
have you seen or heard in the relationships
between students and teachers since students
began wearing uni-forms? Focus group
interviews involved bring-ing together all six
teachers to discuss the ongoing process of the
uniform implementation. The objective was not
debate or consensus, but open expression of
ideas and feelings.
For refinement and verification of research

data, physical and social pattern data were col-
lected through non-participant observation. I
paid particular attention to students entering and
exiting the building as well as student movement
from classroom to classroom or classroom to
library and cafeteria. I wanted to observe stu-
dents in situations where they were afforded
opportunities to interact with one another in a
more spontaneous manner than during formal
instructional times.
Triangulation of data was addressed through
the series of open-ended interviews, which
elicited different perspectives on the same issue.
Each interviewing "layer" contributed to the
overall trustworthiness of the data and increased
confidence in the research findings. If several
different people have similar stories, we have
more confidence in the insights we are gaining

than if only one person is interviewed. Further
assurance was provided through non-participant
observation and official school documentation
that compiled discipline referral information to
provide a record of the number and type of
student infractions so as to gauge one aspect of
overall school climate during the initial year of
the uniform policy.
Data Analysis
Although interview and field data were
stored, written, and displayed with computer
assistance, the bulk of coding, indexing, and
SCHOOL UNIFORMS 35
interpreting was performed manually. Interview
data were categorized into coding families based
upon regularities and patterns. This approach,
known as open coding, pertains specifically to

the naming and categorizing of basic concepts,
themes, and other phenomena through close
examination of the data bases (Strauss, 1987).
To accomplish this analysis, the transcribed
comments were first organized into categories
and analyzed for thematic (or contextual) uses of
keywords and phrases. To assess these issues,
categories were developed by grouping together
the most frequently occurring keywords (exam-
ple: words like ―respect‖ and ―excited‖). A com-
bined context of less frequently used keywords
was used to form other categories. A matrix of
data patterns was created.
Data were written up as a realist tale, which,
according to Van Maanen (1988), covers many
aspects that have relevance to the theme.
Because the research question revolves around
the perceptions of the teachers who are directly

involved and the voices they use to describe or
react to the phenomenon, the researcher was
absent from much, if not all, of the text. In a
realist tale, the "native's" point of view is
paramount and the author looks at fieldwork as
an observational and descriptive act. The
teachers are represented as "experts" and the
researcher as an unobtrusive observer.
Reliability and Validity
Like Heraclitus who could not step into the
same river twice (LeCompte & Preissle, 1997),
data in a study of this nature cannot be
replicated. External reliability was addressed,
how-ever, by a careful delineation of those who
provided the data, an explicit description of how
participants were selected, the context in which
interviews were conducted, and techniques used
to acquire and analyze data. Internal reliability

was addressed through mechanically recorded
data, which, according to LeCompte and Preissle
(1997), ―preserves all data, unabstracted‖
(p. 340). Regarding validity, ethnographic
analysis incorporates a researcher reflection,
introspection, and self-monitoring that can be
called disciplined subjectivity (McMillan &
Schumacher, 1997) wherein all phases of the
research are exposed to continual questioning
and reevaluation. Credibility of participant
reports was enhanced through independent
corroboration from multiple informants and
cross-group comparisons. The inclusion of
quantitatively measured attributes of the setting,
such as socioeconomic statuses and racial com-
position, served to demonstrate what Wolcott
(1973) called the ―typicality‖ of a phenomenon,
the extent to which it may be compared and

contrasted along relevant dimensions with other
phenomena. Collecting data through teachers
and non-participant observation mitigated obser-
vation-setting-interaction effects.
Results
Interviews with Mses. Anderson, Barry,
Evans, and Flanagan, and Messrs. Clark and
Davis, revealed that teachers had positive
perceptions of the overall school climate in their
public elementary school following the
implementation of a new school uniform policy.
An elaboration on these findings, augmented
through the voices of the teachers, follows.
(Comments are representative extractions from
hours of interviews.)
Teachers’ Perceptions of Socio/Emotional
Aspects of School Climate
Teachers perceived an increase in the level

of respect, caring, and trust demonstrated
throughout the school after the implementation
of the school uniform policy. According to
Mr. Clark, much of this increase was attributed
to ―a blurring of economic distinctions which
minimized a source of discrimination against
extremely low-income students.‖ Mr. Clark
added: ―I think the students treat one another
with more consideration and they are less apt to
ridicule certain children because they are not
wearing the ‗right‘ clothes.‖ Ms. Flangan noted,
―Some children come to school very conscious
of what they‘re wearing. You are not in the
group if you do not have a certain brand. So
much of that is played down if you have
uniforms.‖ Ms. Evans concurred:
When all students are wearing the same
outfit they are less concerned about how

they fit in with their peers. Kids can
develop strong feelings of inferiority
when they think they do not have the
36 HUSS
popular clothes. I don‘t see kids being
judged now by their classmates for not
having the ―right‖ clothes or for wearing
hand-me-downs.
Teachers perceived an elevation in the
overall morale at the school after the
implementation of the school uniform policy.
Ms. Barry used the term ―pride of affiliation,‖
Mr. Clark noticed a ―sense of belonging,‖ and
Ms. Anderson believed the students possessed a
―good feeling about being there.‖ Ms. Anderson
explained:

My class is a real enthusiastic group.
They really want to do this. They think
it makes us special, makes us stand out
because we‘re wearing uniforms. We
had children who wanted to come to this
school because you can go intra-district;
we just didn‘t have the space for them.
Ms. Barry recalled a precise incident when she
felt her students demonstrated increased self-
respect because of the uniform:
I remember we took the kids in my
grade on a field trip, and there were
other schools in the area who went to
the same destination. I think our stu-
dents felt proud when they stepped off
the bus and lined up, all wearing their
uniforms. We were like a team.
Mr. Davis had a similar observation: ―I think

there‘s been an increase in school spirit and
enthusiasm for the school; kids are talking about
the school colors and the uniforms.‖
Teachers perceived improvement in order
and discipline at the school, with all six
respondents citing ―fewer classroom disrupt-
tions‖ and ―fewer incidences of quarreling‖
among students. Ms. Barry explained, ―My kids
sit up and pay attention. They‘re quiet. I think
the school takes on a quieter, studious atmos-
phere. They‘re getting along. They‘re more
focused on their assignments.‖ Ms. Anderson
likewise noticed a greater sense of calmness in
her class:
There is less attention being paid to who
has what, fewer comments are made;
kids‘ self-esteem is not threatened.
Basically, I think uniforms take some of

the stress off of the students and they are
less apt to ―act-out in class.‖
Teachers perceived improvement in the
interpersonal relations between students after the
implementation of the school uniform policy.
Specific key phrases included ―reductions in
between-group stresses,‖ ―less jealousies,‖ and
―fewer artificial rankings or cliques.‖ Mr. Clark
commented, ―Students are not comparing them-
selves to everybody else. They see each other as
equals.‖ Ms. Flanagan was particularly pleased
with the female members of her classroom:
I think my girls are, perhaps, a little less
―catty.‖ You work with elementary girls
and they love to compare one another,
and I think that‘s been a little easier to
control this year. They still go at each
other‘s hair and things like that, ha ha,

but they‘re not getting into the clothes
this year a whole lot and I do believe the
uniforms have been a big factor with
that.
After the implementation of the school uni-
form policy, teachers perceived improvement in
the relations between students and teachers as
well. According to Ms. Barry, ―The kids wear-
ing uniforms are less cocky toward adults. The
kids wearing the uniforms are generally better
behaved—less ‗attitude.‘‖ Ms. Evans remarked
on the efforts of teachers to share the school
uniform experience with the children:
When the kids wear the uniforms, I
think they are more respectful to the
teachers. A lot of the teachers try to
motivate the students by wearing blue
and white themselves. It makes it like

we‘re all in this thing together.
Teachers’ Perceptions on Cognitive Aspects
of School Climate
Teachers perceived improvement in aca-
demic and achievement motivation, with
Ms. Barry noticing ―an increased sense of
responsibility by students‖ and Ms. Anderson
acknowledging ―a more effective use of
instructional time, and greater participation in
classroom activities.‖ Mr. Clark stated, ―Some-
times it seems like the kids who perform at the
lowest levels are the very kids who do not
comply with the policy.‖ Ms. Flangan explained:
I think the kids are more ―businesslike.‖
It‘s like when kids behave a little better
SCHOOL UNIFORMS 37
or act more grown up when they‘re

dressed up to go somewhere. I think I
see that attitude more. The kids in my
class who are responsible enough to
wear their uniforms are more respon-
sible in other areas---like homework,
like paying attention, like studying for
tests, the whole gamut.
Mr. Davis was in agreement:
I do have a high rate of kids bringing in
their homework, participating in discus-
sions, and being more responsible in
general about their schoolwork. They
seem more focused on school and less
on outside distractions like clothes.
They come across as much more
serious, serious about their work.
Ms. Evans expressed:
I think when students wear uniforms,

more learning is taking place because
they are less interested in what other
people are wearing, and they‘re not
wasting time sizing up the other guy or
gal. I think they focus more on their
work. The kids get more time on task
because there are fewer disruptions.
What the Numbers Said
According to school documentation for
discipline referrals provided by the principal, the
number of students assigned to the ―green room‖
(a room for students who have been removed
from the classroom and/or referred for
disciplinary action) averaged 11.67 during the
year preceding the implementation of the school
uniform policy and 11.71 during the first year of
the school uniform policy. So, while suspensions
dropped from five to three, the rate of discipline

referrals remained nearly the same. Infractions
for failure to comply with the uniform policy
were handled through the front office and did
not involve referral to the ―green room.‖
Discussion
Consistent with much of the growing
empirical and anecdotal literature that has
emerged throughout the past decade concerning
the positive contributions of school uniforms in
public school settings, the teachers who partici-
pated in this study likewise perceived improve-
ments in distinct aspects of school climate. The
respondents, both individually and as a group,
were unwavering in their support for uniforms.
Teachers perceived that uniforms enhanced
the learning environment by encouraging inte-
grality among students, enriching the quality of
interactions between faculty and students, and

improving discipline. According to the teachers,
students are made to feel ―important‖ and as if
they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform.
Because the kids believe they ―fit in,‖ they have
shown a greater propensity for class work and
have exhibited better attitudes toward being at
school. Teachers underscored a willingness by
students to put effort into learning, although
actual increases in student grades were not
communicated.
Such ardor demonstrated by the inter-
viewees, despite no statistical reduction in
student discipline referrals (referrals actually
increased by percentage points), may suggest
the presence of an expectation effect. If the
judged person exhibits an attractive character-
istic (wearing the school uniform), an individual
will be optimistic regarding other features of the

judged person. People develop points of view
very easily, frequently in an effort to label,
categorize, or understand subjects and objects of
life. According to Greenwald and Banaji (1995),
the implicit attitude is established without
conscious recognition of the source's influence.
Three teachers, for example, made rather
sweeping statements that revealed a clear
preference toward the wearing of uniforms, and
a subsequent indictment of students who do not:
Ms. Barry: “The kids wearing uniforms
are less cocky toward adults.”
Mr. Clark: ―It seems like the kids who
perform at the lowest levels are the very
kids who do not comply with the
policy.”
Ms. Flanagan: ―The students in my class
who are responsible enough to wear

their uniforms are more responsible in
other areas, like homework, like paying
attention, like studying for tests, the
whole gamut.”
Attribution theory (Weiner, 1974) looks at
how the social perceiver uses information to
arrive at causal explanations for events. Both
teachers and students may produce an external
38 HUSS
or situational attribution for a perceived
improvement in school climate and use the
school uniform to ―explain‖ the event. Teachers
who make such an attribution by accrediting
perceived improvements in children‘s conduct to
the school uniform may then expect specific
behavior and achievement from particular stu-

dents who wear the uniforms. In other words,
the uniform is a signifier of role identity that
creates an expectation that the wearer has a
particular character, whether such a character is
actually present or not. (If people believe things
to be real, they are real in their consequences--
the Thomas Dictum.) If many students wearing
uniforms are seen to exhibit this ―improved‖
behavior, the attribution then displays
consensus.
Future Research
The perceptions of the teachers in this study
provided an additional layer of support to that
body of research that suggests school uniforms
have social as well as practical value in public
school buildings. Expansion of the study to
include other sites, other contexts, and other
grade levels is highly suggested. While the data

captured initial impressions of respondents,
further research in the form of a longitudinal
study would be helpful to track the policy and its
continuing impact on teachers. In the same vein,
the results of this study represent only one
segment of a school population whose total
interactions contribute to the creation of sym-
bolic meanings, which may exist. A future study
might focus on the perceptions of students or
parents to better portray the aggregate of the
school environment.
References
Blumer, H. (1957). Collective behavior. In. J. Glitter
(Ed.), Review of Sociology: Analysis of a decade
(pp. 167-222). New York: Wiley.
Bodine, A. (2003). School uniforms, academic
achievement, and uses of research. Journal of
Educational Research, 97, 67-72.

Broadbent, M., Darke, P., & Shanks, G. (1998).
Successfully completing case study research:
Combining rigor, relevance and pragmatism.
Information Systems Journal, 4, 273 - 289.
Brunsma, D. L., & Rockquemore, K. A. (1998).
Effects of student uniforms on attendance,
behavior problems, substance abuse, and aca-
demic achievement. The Journal of Education
Research, 92, 53-62.
Cavaye, A. (1996). Case study research: A multi-
faceted research approach for IS. Information
Systems Journal, 6, 227-242.
Cohn, C., & Siegal, L. (1996). Should students wear
uniforms? Learning, 25, 38-39.
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and appl-

ications (8
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit
social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27
Gregory, N. (1996). Effect of school uniforms on self
esteem, academic achievement, and attendance.
DAI-A 58/08. Orangeburg, SC: South Carolina
State University Press.
Haynes, R. (1996). Positive school climate is more
than 'feel good.' School Development Program
Newsline, Spring 1996, 1-3.
Hoffler-Riddick, P., & Lassiter, K. (1996). School
uniforms bring the focus back to instruction.
Schools in the Middle, 5, 27-28.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1997). Ethnography

and qualitative design in educational research.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. S. (1997).
Research in education: A conceptual introduc-
tion. New York: Longman.
Murray, R. (1997). Impact of school uniforms on
school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 106-112.
National Association of Elementary School
Principals (2000). School uniforms: why and
how? Principal Online. Retrieved June 1, 2006,
from http://www.naesp.org/ misc/uniforms.htm.
Ohio Department of Education. (2005). State/local
report cards and resources. Ohio Department of
Education website. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and
research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Peters, K. (1996). Can uniforms improve school
climate? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 25,
36-37.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social
scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
http://www.naesp.org/
SCHOOL UNIFORMS 39
Tucker, W. H. (1999) How student uniforms impact
teacher perceptions of climate in urban public
middle schools. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of Minnesota.
U. S. Department of Education. (1996). Manual on
school uniforms. Washington, D. C.: United
States Department of Education.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing

ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wade, K., & Stafford, M. (2003). Public school
uniforms: Effect on perceptions of gang pre-
sence, school climate, and student self-
perceptions. Education and Urban Society, 35,
399-420.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information sys-
tems in organizations. Chichester, Wiley.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and
attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General
Learning Press.
Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principal’s office:
An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Commentaries

Should School Uniforms be Mandated in Elementary Schools?
Keith A. King
iolence among today’s young people, especially at V school, has
been labeled by many health professionals
as a potential threat to the overall health and academic
success of children.’-6 Approximately one in four students
reports worrying about becoming a victim of crime or
threats at school, and one in eight reports having been
victimized at school.’ In light of such reports, schools have
implemented violence prevention programs, which have
shown moderate
As these programs continue, teachers, principals,
parents, and students have also noted a possible connection
between school violence and the type of clothing students
wear in school. The fashion trend at schools, especially
urban schools, is largely dominated by children wearing
gang-related or gang-like clothing. The problematic issue
of gangs and school violence has been addressed in several
studies.*,’ With respect to gang-related clothing, gang
members frequently roam streets near schools and often
enter schools. Hence, the color of clothing that students
wear can result in their becoming targets of intentional or
unintentional violence.’’ In addition, the style of clothing
popular among children today arose from the clothing of
inner-city gangs, who have worn baggy pants and oversized
shirts that could hide weapons and drugs from law enforce-
ment officials. With such clothing glamorized by music
videos and television sitcoms, more children wear similar
styles of baggy, oversized shirts and pants to school. Such
clothing can become a means of transporting weapons or
drugs into school and thus indirectly increase school
violence. Add to this the finding that one in three youths
reports easy access to handguns, and the concern for school

safety becomes especially crucial.’
Children’s hunger to be fashionable brings another
dimension to the connection between clothing style and
school violence. Children may envy other children’s cloth-
ing and lack the financial resources to purchase similar
styles. Subsequently, children have been violently injured
or even murdered for their designer clothes, sneakers, or
professional sport-team paraphernalia. School uniforms
may reduce these occurrences. In addition, requiring chil-
dren to wear the same clothing could send them a message
that they all belong to the same team, which may decrease
violence toward other “team members.”
Keith A. King. MSEd, Graduate Assistant, Dept. of Health
Promotion and
Human Performance, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
43606. This
article was submitted April 24, 1997, and revised and accepted f
o r publi-
cation August 29, 1997.
Long Beach (Calif.) Unified School District - compris-
ing 56 elementary middle schools, and nearly
60,000 students - was the first large urban school district
in the United States to require school uniforms for all
students, kindergarten through grade eight. Since 1994,
when mandatory uniform policies were adopted in this
school district, district officials have found that violence
and discipline problems dramatically decreased. In the
first year following implementation, overall school crime
decreased by 36%; sex offenses, by 74%; physical fights
between students, by 51 %; weapons offenses, by 50%;
assault and battery offenses, by 34%; school suspensions,
by 32%; and vandalism, by 18%.”.’*

A proposal calling for mandatory uniforms in elemen-
tary schools as a means to reduce youth violence has arisen
and has found support among numerous individuals. The
President of the United States mentioned the worth of
school uniforms in his 1995 State of the Union Address.”
However, those who oppose the proposal include highly
regarded individuals and organizations, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) most notedly among them.”
THE CASE FOR UNIFORMS
The school should provide a safe and disciplined learn-
ing environment for students.I3 Violence in schools destroys
such an environment and can negatively affect student
motivation for learning. Everett and Price l 4 found that due
to increased prevalence of school violence, one in five
public school students feels less eager to go to school every
day, one in seven feels less inclined to pay attention to
learning in school, and one in 10 stays home from school or
cuts class. In unsafe school environments, teachers cannot
teach to their maximum potential, and students cannot learn
to their full capability.6
Youths who feel safe, secure, and free from threats of
violence perform better academically. I’ Those who fear for
their safety in school or on the way to school may not learn
effectively, and they may turn to truancy as a viable alter-
native to facing the daily threats of violence. One of every
10 to 12 youths who stays away from school does so
because of fear.6.14 In their response to increasing school
violence, several teachers, principals, parents, and students
believe uniforms could help reduce violence.
Many people believe adoption of school uniform poli-
cies will lead to increased school safety, student discipline,
and student learning.” More specifically, many have argued

that school uniforms assist in reducing school violence and
theft; preventing gang activity, such as students wearing
gang colors and gang insignia; providing discipline in
32 Journal of School Health January 1 9 9 8 , Vol. 68, No. 1
students; helping students to concentrate on their school
work; helping students to resist peer pressure; and helping
school officials easily recognize school intruders.'2.'5
In a survey of the United Teachers of Dade County,
Florida, approximately 60% of the group's members
supported mandatory uniforms for school children.ls
Similarly, of the 5,500 principals surveyed as attendees of
the National Association of Secondary School Principals'
annual conference in February 1996, more than 70%
believed that requiring students to wear uniforms to school
would reduce violent incidents and discipline problems.16
Moreover, greater than 80% of Long Beach P r e s s -
Telegram readers supported school uniforms.17
Some school personnel believe students and teachers
tend to behave the way they are allowed to dress.6 Instead
of adopting a policy for mandatory school uniforms,
several schools have adopted a mandatory dress code
policy for teachers as well as students, which aims to estab-
lish clear appearance and behavioral standards for
As mentioned previously, Long Beach Unified School
District was the first large urban school district i n the
United States to require school uniforms for all students in
grades kindergarten through grade eight, and it subse-
quently experienced great decreases in school violence,
crime, and Despite allowing parents the

UNIFORMSAre They a Good FitBy Marsha BoutelieFrom Cal.docx

UNIFORMSAre They a Good FitBy Marsha BoutelieFrom Cal.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from willcoxjanay

More from willcoxjanay (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UNIFORMSAre They a Good FitBy Marsha BoutelieFrom Cal.docx