Research Activity

Do uniforms make schools better?
www.greatschools.orgBy Marian Wilde
For the past decade, schools, parents and students have clashed over the issue of regulating student
attire. In 2007, cases involving an anti-Bush T-shirt in Vermont, an anti-gay T-shirt in San Diego and
Tigger socks in Napa, California, made their way through the courts, causing many to wonder whether
this debate will ever be resolved.
Meanwhile, researchers are divided over how much of an impact - if any - dress policies have upon
student learning. A 2004 book makes the case that uniforms do not improve school safety or
academic discipline. A 2005 study, on the other hand, indicates that in some Ohio high schools
uniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates, although no improvements were
observed in academic performance.
Why do some public schools have uniforms?
In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the
perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to
adopt a school uniform policy.
President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996
State of the Union speech, "If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets,
then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms."
1

The psychological influence of the police uniforminShare0
By Richard R. Johnson, M.S.
Introduction
Most people can identify a police officer by the official police uniform. When citizens on a busy street are
in need of help, they scan the crowds of pedestrians looking for the distinctive uniform of a police officer.
Drivers who come to an intersection occupied by a person in a police uniform usually willingly submit to
that person''s hand directions. Criminals usually curb their unlawful behavior when they spot a uniformed
police officer in the area. Many parents teach their children to respect and trust a person in the police
uniform. Police academy recruits relish the day when they may finally wear their official police uniforms.
What is so special about a uniform which is often made of cheap polyester and is usually hot and
uncomfortable to wear?
The crisp uniform of the police officer conveys power and authority. When a police officer puts on his or
her uniform the officer is perceived in a very different way by the public. He or she is viewed as
embodying each person''s stereotypes about all police officers. Research has suggested that clothing has
a powerful impact on bow people are perceived, and this goes for the police officer as well. The uniform
of a police officer has been found to have a profound psychological impact on those who view it.
Research has also suggested that even slight alterations to the style of the uniform will change how
citizens will perceive the officer.
The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem police
force, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first police
officers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The color
blue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at the
time. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845.
Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in
1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quickly
followed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption of
the dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.
To this day, the majority of police uniforms in. the United States continue to have a paramilitary
appearance and are generally of a dark color. Darker colors may have been preferred for their case in
cleaning and their ability to help conceal the wearer in tactical situations. Dark colors help cover up stains
and keep the officer from being easily spotted by lawbreakers, especially at night. However, why do most
police agencies insist on dressing patrol officers in uniforms? Is this simply because of tradition? Is it only
for the ease of identification by citizens? Maybe it is because the uniform actually psychologically
influences how officers are perceived by the public.
The Social Significance of Clothing
When a person encounters a stranger, the person seeks clues from the stranger''s appearance which can
reveal things about the stranger. One powerful clue to a person''s background is clothing. Clothing serves
as a mental shortcut to identifying a persons sex, status, group membership, legitimacy, authority, and
occupation. Clothing and physical appearance are very important in the initial development of social
relationships. Studies have revealed that physical appearance, including clothing, is the factor most often
used in developing a first impression of someone. Clothing has been found to have an even greater effect
on making first impressions than does personality.
In early social interactions, clothing has a significant psychological influence on people''s perceptions.
Personnel administrators who were asked to rate the competency of similar female job applicants
consistently rated the women in conservative, slightly-masculine attire as the most competent. In another
study, both high school students and teachers were asked to rate, pictures of female athletes, some of
whom were in uniform and the others in casual street clothes, All of the athletes were perceived as being
2

more professional, possessing higher ability, and having more team spirit when viewed in uniform. Both
students and teachers, have also rated photos of students in private school-type uniforms as having
higher scholastic ability.
The uniform worn by a police officer also elicits stereotypes about that human being''s status, authority,
attitudes, and motivations, The police uniform serves to identify a person as one vested with the powers
of the state to arrest and use force. The uniform also serves to establish order and conformity within the
ranks of those who wear it by suppressing individuality. The psychological and physical impact of the
police uniform should not be underestimated. Depending on the background of the citizen, the police
uniform can elicit emotions ranging from pride and respect, to fear and anger.
The Power of the Police Uniform
Research has supported these suggestions about the police uniform''s power and authority. In one study
people who were asked to rank order 25 different occupational uniforms by several categories of feelings.
The test subjects consistently ranked the police uniform as the one most likely to induce feelings of
safety. In another experiment, models were consistently rated as more competent, reliable, intelligent,
and helpful when pictured in a police uniform than they were in casual street clothes. Drivers were also
found to commit far fewer turn violations at an intersection if a person wearing a police-style uniform was
standing on the sidewalk near the comer. This occurred even though the uniform was not that of a real
police department in the area and had no badge or weapons. One interesting experiment to test the
power of the police uniform was conducted by psychologist Dr. Leonard Bickman. Pedestrians on a city
street were approached at random and ordered by a research assistant to either pick tip a paper bag,
give a dime to another person, or step back from a bus stop. The research assistant was alternately
dressed in casual street clothes, a milkman uniform, or a grey, police-style uniform bearing a badge but
lacking weapons. Only the police-style uniform resulted in a high rate of cooperation from citizens.
Obedience to the police-style uniform usually continued even after the research assistant quickly walked
away and did not watch to ensure compliance.

South Korea shuts down for the all-or-nothing Korean SAT
By Bryan Kay, Correspondent / November 10, 2011
Some 80 percent of Korea's high school students go on to further education. And to
ensure students have the best chance, one day every year Korea changes its plane
schedules, redirects traffic, and holds its breath.
For the nearly 700,000 high schoolers on their way out of school taking the test this morning, this will
determine what university they will go to (if any), their salary, and their future fate.
Such is the all-or-nothing emphasis pinned on gaining entry to one of a handful of the top higher
education institutions in the country – anchored in the so-called SKY (Seoul National, Korea and
Yonsei universities) trinity – that the entire Korean education system is geared toward success on
this single day of the year.
Beyond college, a place at one of the top colleges is seen as a golden ticket to the ultimate prize of a
job at one of the country's top conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG.
But the pressure-laden path to the test, say critics, is one littered with some of South Korea's most
glaring social ills. Though its education system is held up as a model around the world, with about 80
percent of high school students going on to college, South Korea harbors one of the world's most
astronomical levels of private education costs forked out by parents intent on ensuring their children
get ahead. And some have linked the test to some of the increasing number of teen suicides in the
country.
One national newspaper columnist noted that this surge for a limited number of places at so few
universities has also been linked to a spike in real estates prices in school districts with rumors of
historically high pass rates.
The winds of change have been set in motion, however. President Lee Myung-bak wants companies
to focus energies on recruiting high school graduates from vocational-focused places of learning in a
bid to curb a rising youth unemployment rate.
South Korea's high university graduate rate leads to a bottleneck in the job market, pitting too many
applicants in competition for a much smaller number of jobs. That, say experts, helps explain the
country's high youth unemployment rate.
Whether Koreans will make the switch and value vocational educations, remains to be seen. For
now, the exams are a "Korean rite of passage." Students are scheduled to find out what life holds in
store for them on Nov. 30.
3

The U.S.-Korea Embrace
Council on Foreign Relations
Interviewee: Scott A. Snyder, Senior Fellow for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on U.S.-
Korea Policy
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
The United States and South Korea look to reaffirm their special security and economic alliance during
President Park Geun-hye's first state visit to Washington this week. Scott A. Snyder, CFR's top Korea
expert, says, "Both sides are eager to share with each other messages of assurance, given the tensions
with North Korea." On economic affairs, he notes that while "there have been no real hiccups so far"
regarding the now one-year-old U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, "a potential issue" will be whether
Seoul may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations (PDF), a proposed regional free-trade pact
that includes the U.S and eleven other nations.
Recently elected president Park Geun-hye of South Korea is set to meet President Obama
tomorrow at the White House, and will later speak to a joint session of Congress. What do
you expect from this high-level visit?
It's really a "getting to know you" meeting for both President Obama and President Park in the context
of the long-standing close relationship between the United States and South Korea. Under the current
circumstances, both sides are eager to share with each other messages of assurance, given the tensions
with North Korea. The United States is going to want to assure Seoul of its commitment to South Korea's
security, and I think President Park will want to provide an assurance to the United States that she is a
stable and capable crisis manager.
On the economic situation: For a while, there were some tensions in the U.S.-South Korean
relationship over trade issues. Have they been resolved?
We just celebrated the one-year anniversary of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement, and I think it has
been going fine. There's some marginal increase in trade between the United States and South Korea,
and there have been no real hiccups so far. I'm sure both sides will want to talk further about
implementation, but there are no real outstanding bilateral trade issues right now. There will be a
potential issue relating to whether South Korea might join multilateral negotiations of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP).
Right now, there are about twelve different countries involved; Japan has just indicatedits desire to be
included.
The TPP is a stepping stone to a high-standard, free trade arrangement in Asia. It's standards-based, so
not everybody has opted to join, but it's really the main prong of U.S. economic engagement with the
Asian region.
4

North Korea: secrets and lies
By Barbara Demick telegraph.co.uk
A tale of illicit romance, cruel famine and dramatic escape from North Korea, the country
that fell out of the developed world.
If you look at satellite photographs of the Far East by night, you'll see a large splotch curiously
lacking in light. This area of darkness is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Next to this mysterious black hole, South Korea, Japan and China fairly gleam with prosperity. Even
from hundreds of miles above, the billboards, the headlights and streetlights, the neon of the fast
food chains appear as tiny white dots signifying people going about their business as 21st-century
energy consumers. Then, in the middle of it all, an expanse of blackness nearly as large as England.
It is baffling how a nation of 23 million people can appear as vacant as the oceans. North Korea is
simply a blank.
North Korea faded to black in the early 1990s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had
propped up its old Communist ally with cheap fuel oil, North Korea's creakily inefficient economy
collapsed. Power stations rusted into ruin. The lights went out. Even in parts of the showcase capital
of Pyongyang, you can stroll down the middle of a main street at night without being able to see the
buildings on either side.
North Korea is not an undeveloped country; it is a country that has fallen out of the developed world.
You can see the evidence of what has been lost dangling overhead alongside any major road – the
skeletal wires of the rusted electrical grid that once covered the entire country.
North Koreans beyond middle age remember well when they had more electricity (and for that
matter food) than their pro-American cousins in South Korea, and that compounds the indignity of
spending their nights sitting in the dark. In the 1990s the United States offered to help North Korea
with its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons programme. But the deal fell apart after the
Bush administration accused the North Koreans of reneging on their promises. North Koreans
complain bitterly about the darkness, which they still blame on the US sanctions.
But the dark has advantages of its own. Especially if you are a teenager dating somebody you can't
be seen with. When adults go to bed, sometimes as early as 7pm in winter, it is easy enough to slip
out of the house. The darkness confers measures of privacy and freedom as hard to come by in
North Korea as electricity.
I met many North Koreans who told me how much they learnt to love the darkness, but it was the
story of one teenage girl and her boyfriend that impressed me most. She was 12 years old when she
met a young man three years older from a neighbouring town. Her family was low-ranking in the
byzantine system of social controls in place in North Korea. To be seen in public together would
damage the boy's career prospects as well as her reputation as a virtuous young woman. So their
dates consisted entirely of long walks in the dark. There was nothing else to do anyway; by the time
they started dating in earnest in the early 1990s, none of the restaurants or cinemas was operating
because of the lack of power.
They would meet after dinner. The girl had instructed her boyfriend not to knock on the front door
and risk questions from her family. The boy found a spot behind a wall where nobody would notice
him as the light seeped out of the day. He would wait hours for her, maybe two or three. It didn't
matter. The cadence of life is slower in North Korea. Nobody owned a watch.
The girl would emerge just as soon as she could extricate herself. At first, they would walk in silence,
then their voices would gradually rise to whispers and then to normal conversational levels as they
left the village and relaxed into the night. They maintained an arm's-length distance from each other
until they were sure they wouldn't be spotted, talking about their families, their classmates, books
they had read – whatever the topic, it was endlessly fascinating. Years later, when I asked the girl
about the happiest memories of her life, she told me of those nights.
5

By the time I met her, in 2004, she was a woman of 31. Mi-ran (not her real name) had defected six
years earlier and was living in South Korea. I was writing an article about defectors and had asked
Mi-ran to lunch in order to learn more about North Korea's school system. In the years before her
defection, she had worked as a kindergarten teacher in a mining town. It was a serious conversation,
at times grim. The food on our table went uneaten as she described watching her five- and-six-year-
old pupils die of starvation. As her students were dying, she was supposed to teach them that they
were blessed to be North Korean.
There was something about her self-possession and candour that allowed me to ask more personal
questions. Did she have a boyfriend there?
'It's funny you ask,' she said. 'I had a dream about him the other night.' Mi-ran laughed. 'It took us
three years to hold hands. Another six to kiss. I would never have dreamt of doing anything more. At
the time I left North Korea, I was 26 years old and a schoolteacher, but I didn't know how babies
were conceived.'
Mi-ran admitted that she frequently thought about her first love and felt some pangs of remorse over
the way she left. Jun-sang had been her best friend, the person in whom she confided her dreams
and the secrets of her family. But she had none the less withheld from him the biggest secret of her
life. She never told him how disgusted she was with North Korea, how she didn't believe the
propaganda she passed on to her pupils. Above all, she never told him that her family was hatching
a plan to defect. Not that she didn't trust him, but you could never be too careful.
Neighbours denounced neighbours, friends denounced friends. If anybody in the secret police had
learnt of their plans, her entire family would have been carted away to a labour camp in the
mountains.
'I couldn't risk it,' she told me. 'I couldn't even say goodbye.'
Mi-ran and Jun-sang lived on the outskirts of Chongjin, one of the industrial cities in the northeast of
the peninsula, not far from the border with Russia. The North Korean landscape is strikingly beautiful
in places, but somehow devoid of colour. The houses are simple, utilitarian and monochromatic.
Most of the housing stock was built in the 1960s and 1970s from cement block and limestone, doled
out to people based on their job and rank. In the countryside, people typically live in single-storey
buildings called 'harmonicas', rows of one-room homes, stuck together like the little boxes that make
up the chambers of a harmonica.
In 1984 George Orwell wrote of a world where the only colour to be found was in the propaganda
posters. Such is the case in North Korea. Images of Kim Il-sung are depicted in vivid colours. Rays
of yellow and orange emanate from his face: he is the sun. The red letters leap out of the grey
landscape with urgency: long live kimil-sung. we will do as the party tells us. we have nothing to
envy in the world.
Until her early teens, Mi-ran had no reason not to believe the signs. Her father was a mine worker.
Her family was poor, but so was everyone they knew. Since all outside publications, films and
broadcasts were banned, Mi-ran assumed that nowhere else in the world were people better off, and
that most probably fared far worse. She heard many, many times on the radio and television that
South Koreans were miserable, that China's diluted brand of Communism was less successful than
that brought by Kim Il-sung and that millions of Chinese were going hungry. All in all, Mi-ran felt she
was quite lucky to have been born in North Korea under the loving care of the fatherly leader.
In fact, the village where Mi-ran grew up was not such a bad place in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a
typical North Korean village of about 1,000 people, but its location was fortuitous. The East Sea (the
Sea of Japan) was only six miles away, so locals could occasionally eat fresh fish and crab. The
village lay just beyond the smokestacks of Chongjin and so had the advantages of proximity to the
city as well as open space on which to grow vegetables.
Mi-Ran's father, Tae-woo, had grown up in South Chungchong province in South Korea. He was 18
when the Communists invaded in 1950, and he had no choice but to enlist. The South Koreans were
ill-prepared and needed all the able-bodied men they could get. He was captured as a prisoner of
war, and his life as a South Korean was effectively over.
After the armistice, there was a prisoner exchange, but thousands more were never sent home,
among them Tae-woo, who was sent to an iron-ore mine in Musan, a gritty town on the North

Korean side of the Chinese border. Here he met and married Mi-ran's mother, and Tae-woo quickly
assimilated into North Korean life. It was easy enough for him to blend in. Soon after his marriage,
Tae-woo and his new bride were transferred to another mine near Chongjin where he knew nobody.
There was no reason for anyone to suspect anything unusual in his background, but it was in the
peculiar nature of North Korea that somebody always did know.
After the war, Kim Il-sung made it his first order of business to weed out foe from friend. He disposed
of many of his comrades in arms. They had been invaluable during the war; now that they had
served their purpose they could be discarded. Kim Il-sung then turned his attention to ordinary
people. In 1958 he ordered up an elaborate project to classify all North Koreans by their political
reliability. Each person was put through eight background checks. Your songbun, as the rating was
called, took into account the backgrounds of your parents, grandparents and even second cousins.
As a former South Korean soldier, Tae-woo's ranking was towards the bottom of the heap. North
Koreans of the lower ranks were banned from living in Pyongyang or the nicer patches of
countryside towards the south where the soil was more fertile and the weather warmer. Tae-woo
couldn't dream of joining the Workers' Party, which, like the Communist Party in China and the
Soviet Union, controlled the plum jobs.
People of his rank would be closely watched by their neighbours. It was almost impossible for a
North Korean of low rank to improve his status. Whatever your original stain, it was permanent and
immutable. And family status was hereditary. The sins of the father were the sins of the children and
the grandchildren. The North Koreans called these peoplebeulsun – 'tainted blood', or impure.
Mi-ran and her four siblings would carry that taint in their blood. Her parents thought it best if they
said nothing at all to the children about their father's roots. What was the point in burdening them
with the knowledge that they would be barred from the best schools and the best jobs, that their lives
would soon reach a dead end? Why would they bother to study, to practise their musical instruments
or compete in sports?
As the children approached adolescence, the obstacles presented by their father's background
began to loom larger. Those not admitted to further education are assigned to a work unit, a factory,
a coalmine, or the like. But Mi-ran's siblings were confident they would be among those chosen to
further their education. They were smart, good-looking, athletic, well-liked by teachers and peers.
Had they been less talented, rejection might have gone down more easily.
It was Mi-ran's brother who finally forced the truth to the surface. Sok-ju had spent months cramming
for an exam to win admission to the teachers' college. He knew every answer perfectly. When he
was told he had failed, he angrily confronted the judges to demand an explanation.
The truth was devastating. The children had been thoroughly inculcated in the North Korean version
of history. The Americans were the incarnation of evil and the South Koreans their pathetic lackeys.
To learn that their own father was a South Korean who had fought with the Yankees was too much
to bear. Sok-ju got drunk for the first time in his life. He ran away from home. He stayed at a friend's
house for two weeks until the friend convinced him to return. Sok-Ju knew, like any other Korean
boy, that he had to revere his father. He went home and fell to his knees, begging for forgiveness. It
was the first time he saw his father cry.
Mi-ran was in high school when she first noticed that city people were taking trips to the countryside
to scavenge for food. When she bicycled into Chongjin, she would see them, looking like beggars
with their burlap sacks, heading toward the orchards that lined both sides of the road. Some would
even come as far as the cornfields that stretched for miles south from her village towards the sea.
Where Mi-ran lived, the narrow strips between the harmonica houses were painstakingly cultivated
with red peppers, radishes, cabbages and even tobacco, because it was cheaper to roll your own
than to buy cigarettes, and virtually all the men smoked. People whose roofs were flat would put pots
up there to grow more vegetables. These private agricultural efforts were small enough that they
didn't raise the ire of the Communist authorities. At least in the beginning, before the food shortage
grew into a famine, they staved off hunger.
Initially, the relationship between Mi-Ran and Jun-sang took on a 19th-century epistolatory quality.
They stayed in touch by letter. In 1991 few North Koreans had ever used a telephone. You had to go
to a post office to make a phone call. But even writing a letter was not a simple undertaking. Writing-

paper was scarce. People would write in the margins of newspapers. The paper in the state stores
was made of corn husk and would crumble easily. And the distance from Pyongyang to Chongjin
was only 250 miles, but letters took up to a month to be delivered.
In Pyongyang, Jun-sang could buy proper paper. He owned a ballpoint pen. His letters ran on for
pages, long and eloquent. Their correspondence gradually evolved from stilted formalities to full-
blown romance. He quoted to her from the novels he read. He wrote love poems.
Jun-sang's experiences in Pyongyang gave Mi-ran a glimpse into a remote world of privilege. At the
same time, it was hard to listen without a trace of jealousy. She was in her final year of high school
and she feared it would be the end of her education. Jun-sang sensed her depression and probed
more deeply until at last she told him how she felt. 'Things can change,' Jun-sang wrote to her. 'If
you want more in life, you must believe in yourself and you can achieve your dreams.'
Mi-ran would later credit Jun-sang's words of encouragement with changing her life. Once a good
student, she had let her grades drop. She hit the books. If she didn't make it to college, she wouldn't
have herself to blame.
To Mi-ran's great surprise, she was accepted into a teachers' college. In autumn 1991 she moved
out of her parents' house and into the college dormitory. But as winter temperatures plunged
Chongjin into a deep freeze, she realised why it was that the school had been able to give her a
place. The dormitories had no heating. Mi-ran went to sleep each night in her coat, heavy socks and
mittens with a towel draped over her head. When she woke up, the towel would be crusted with frost
from the moisture of her breath. In the bathroom, where the girls washed their menstrual rags
(nobody had sanitary napkins), it was so cold that the rags would freeze solid within minutes of being
hung up to dry.
By the time Mi-ran graduated, in 1994, she was eager to move back home with her parents, as food
distribution in Chongjin had stopped entirely. She requested a teaching assignment close to home
and was fortunate to be sent to a kindergarten near the mines where her father had worked. The
kindergarten was housed in a single-storey concrete building surrounded by an iron fence with
colourfully painted sunflowers that formed an archway over the entrance with the slogan we are
happy. The classrooms were standard issue with matching father-and-son portraits of Kim Il-sung
and Kim Jong-il presiding above the blackboard. There was a large bookcase with only a few books,
barely legible because they had been photocopied long ago from the originals.
The village children were visibly poorer than their city counterparts, and came to school in a motley
assortment of hand-me-downs, often swathed in many layers since there was little heating in the
school. As Mi-ran helped them off with their outerwear, she peeled layer after layer until the tiny
body inside was revealed. When she held their hands in her own, their baby fingers squeezed into
fists as tiny as walnuts. These children, five and six-year-olds, looked to her no bigger than three
and four-year-olds. Mi-ran wondered if some of the children were coming to school mainly for the
free lunch the cafeteria served, a thin soup made of salt and dry leaves.
Still, she approached her new job with enthusiasm. To be a teacher, a member of the educated and
respectable class, was a big step up for the daughter of a miner. She couldn't wait to get up in the
morning and put on the crisp white blouse that she kept pressed under her bed mat at night.
The school day started at 8am. Mi-ran put on her perkiest smile to greet the children as they filed
into the classroom. As soon as she got them into their assigned seats, she brought out her
accordion. All teachers were required to play the accordion – it was often called the 'people's
instrument' since it was portable enough to carry along on a day of voluntary hard labour in the
fields. In the classroom teachers sang, 'We Have Nothing to Envy in the World,' which had a
singsongy tune as familiar to North Korean children as 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.'
This is an edited extract from 'Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea' by Barbara Demick
(Granta). To order for £12.99 plus £1.25 p&p, call Telegraph Books on 0844-871 1515 or
visit books.telegraph.co.uk

Uniform and Dress Code
centralhigh.centralcss.org
Central Community School District Uniform and Dress Code for Central High School
The standard uniform includes the following:
Shirts
1. Shirts will be maroon in color. Shirts will have a collar and short sleeves. Shirts will be plain, with
no pockets, writing, emblems, or designs of any kind except a standard CHS logo. The standard CHS
logo ,as displayed, is optional. The logo will consist of white, three-quarter inch block letters, CHS
monogrammed on the left side. The Power Cat logo is also an exceptable logo. No other logos will be
used. Only plain white T-shirts will be worn underneath these shirts and will not extend past sleeve
length.
2. In addition to maroon shirt, seniors may wear a white shirt and may free-dress every Friday.
3. Shirts will be tucked in and must be long enough to stay tucked when the arms are raised above the
head. The style will be pullover with two, three, or four buttons at the top. Shirts will not be
excessively worn, faded, or frayed and will not have holes or cuts.
Slacks/Skirts
1. Slacks and skirts will be khaki in color and of the specified shade. The shade is khaki. They will not
be rolled at either the waist or the cuff.
2. Slacks are uniform. There should be no designer labels on slacks. Slacks will have belt loops and
will be worn with a belt. The belt will be brown, black, khaki or white and will be no wider than one
inch. Slacks will have two pockets in front and two in back. “Cargo” style pants are not acceptable.
Slacks will have finished bottoms. Cuffs are acceptable. There will be no flared or bell-bottoms. They
will not have holes, cuts, or be frayed. Slacks must be worn at the waist as designed. No jeans, bike
shorts, stretch pants, or sweatpants will be worn. NO CAPRI PANTS WILL BE WORN.
3. Skirts are acceptable if loose fitting and worn no higher than the top of the knee.
4. Knee length shorts (that meet the criteria of "Slacks" above) are acceptable.
Exceptions: JROTC uniforms, when directed to be worn by the Senior Army Instructor, are allowed
during regular school hours.
Also, approved school organization will be allowed to wear school approved non-uniform shirts on
6

special occasions. (The occasions will be approved by the Principal or his designee.) The rest of the
uniform policy and dress code would remain in effect of these days. For example, shirts would
continue to be tucked in and ID cards, where applicable, worn even though the shirt would be non-
uniform.
Dress Code
1. Caps, hats or head coverings are NOT to be worn during the school day, or inside the school day, or
inside the school building. DO NOT BRING CAPS OR HATS ON CAMPUS DURING SCHOOL TIME.
2. Male students are not to wear earrings (or straws to preserve the pierced hole). Girls are allowed
to wear two pairs of earrings. Body piercing is NOT allowed. Only simple jewelry may be worn.
3. Ribbons or bowsmust be marron, white, or grey.
4. Rollers, curlers, picks, rakes, forks, or combs in hair are prohibited.
5. Unnatural coloring of hair or cutting of symbols or designs in hair is not permitted.
6. Beards and goatees are NOT allowed. Sideburns (no longer than the bottom of the ear) and
mustaches are allowed and must be neat and well trimmed.
7. Sunglasses are not to be worn on school grounds unless prescribed for medical purposes and
verified with a doctor’s note, which must be presented to an administrator for approval.
8. Pictures or writing on book sacks, gym bags, jackets, etc. of and offensive, derogatory or obscene
nature is prohibited at school (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, drugs, weapons, blood, skulls, etc.).
STUDENTS WHOSE CLOTHING OR GROOMING IS INAPPROPRIATE IN THE OPINION OF THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL BE SENT HOME TO MAKE THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT. UNEXCUSED
ABSENCES WILL BE GIVEN WHEN STUDENTS ARE SENT HOME TO TAKE CARE OF ANY OF THE ABOVE
POLICES. STUDENTS WHO VIOLATE SET DRESS AND GROOMING POLICIES SHALL ALSO BE SUBJECT
TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION. (TOR OR SUSPENSION)

South Korean school uniform
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost all South Korean secondary students wear a uniform called Gyobok (Hangul: 교복; Hanja: 校服
). The majority of elementary schools except some private elementary schools do not have uniforms;
however, the uniform is strictly monitored from the start of middle school and up. Based on Western-
style uniforms, the South Korean uniform usually consists of a shirt, blazer and tie, with skirts for girls
and long grey trousers for boys. More recently, the uniform is often worn by celebrities who target
the younger, teen audience to sell entertainment products. The school uniform and school setting is
frequently used as a venue for romance. As a result, the uniform has become something akin to an
expression of fashion amongst students.
[edit]History
The very first uniforms in Korea were made in 1886, for the first Western-style school. They were
originally red uniforms but were later changed to a black skirt and white blouse.[1]
Between 1920 and
1945, Japanesecolonists in Korea expanded the use of school uniforms. During those years, the
uniform became trousers and a blouse for girls and a khaki uniform for boys.[2]
[edit]Components of the Uniform
A typical Korean school uniform for a boy usually includes a jacket, a long-sleeved collared white shirt,
a tie, dress trousers, and outerwear for the Winter season. A girl's Korean school uniform generally
consists of, a bow, a collared white shirt with sleeves, a vest, a pleated skirt and outerwear for the
winter, and white socks. Nail polish and make-up were generally not allowed, until many municipal
education departments enacted 'Student's rights acts' which includes freedom of uniform and
freedom of hair style.[3][4]
7

School Uniforms
By studymode, February 2002
A safe and structured learning environment is the first requirement of a good school. Children who feel
safe and secure will better learn basic American values. In return they will learn the basis of good
citizenship and become better students. In response to growing levels of violence in our schools, many
parents, teachers, and school officials have been forced to look toward school uniforms as one
potentially positive way to reduce discipline problems and increase school safety.
It has been observed that the adoption of school uniform policies can promote school safety, improve
discipline, and enhance the learning environment. The potential benefits of school uniforms include
decreasing violence and theft. Some instances involving designer clothing and expensive sneakers have
even led to life-threatening situations among students. Uniforms would also prevent gang members
from wearing gang colors and insignia at school. Uniforms would also teach students discipline and help
them resist peer pressure. Uniforms would also help students concentrate on their schoolwork and
would help school officials detect intruders who come unwelcome into the school. As a result, many
local communities are deciding to adopt school uniform policies as part of an overall program to
improve school safety and discipline.
8

The Benefits Of School Uniforms
Studentvoice.co.uk Posted by Rachel Roberts on 8 Aug 2012
For families with children in school environments, the issue of whether or not school uniforms
are appropriate or beneficial is always a prevalent one. Just about everyone you ask has a
relatively strong opinion regarding whether or not children should wear uniforms, and there are
certainly some strong arguments for either side of the debate. Typically, the main argument
against school uniforms tends to be that they make it more difficult for students to express their
individuality, which could conceivably be a bit harmful to personal development. However, this
is based more in speculation than fact, and when you consider several other points, it is clear
that there are actually several potential benefits to school uniforms. Here are a few specific
benefits to keep in mind.
Purchasing school uniforms can save a great deal of time and effort shopping. If you are trying
to fill out your childs wardrobe with individually picked pieces of clothing, you may find yourself
shopping for a whole week before school starts. However, if you simply have to pick up uniforms
you may just need to drop by the school or a designated store like Marks & Spencer to pick
them up.
Similarly, buying school uniforms can be a great deal cheaper for parents than assembling
individual wardrobes. One argument against uniforms tends to be that they make it more
difficult for families to rely on hand-me-downs from older siblings, but when you think about it
some of this difference is made up in the simplicity of uniforms. Kids with the freedom to wear
whatever they want often want expensive new styles, but with uniforms you can buy a cheaper
wardrobe without worrying about fashion.
Style is actually one of the biggest arguments in favour of school uniforms. Nobody is under the
impression that school uniforms always represent the height of fashion, but in many cases thats
exactly the point. If kids at school dress however they wish, then those without the financial
means to keep up with the latest styles, or those who simply dont have strong senses of fashion,
can often stand out in a negative way. School uniforms help schools to avoid these issues
entirely, and eliminate fashion-based judgments.
Finally, there is your childs focus to consider. There comes a point in life at which fashion is, to
some extent, important those who dress well tend to make better impressions, etc. However,
when your children are young and in school, you likely want to do your best to discourage vanity
and encourage focus on academics and social development. School uniforms take style and
fashion considerations completely out of the picture and allow your kids to focus completely on
what they should be learning in school, but educationally and socially.
9

Why Do We Make Our Kids Wear Uniforms?
http://www.optionality.net/mag/oct98a.html
Training?
The 'training' argument says that when you are employed, you are likely to have to wear a uniform. Is
this true? What are the odds that children will wear a uniform later in life? Typically, the occupations
where people have to wear uniforms are the lower paid jobs, nothing to look forward to, really.
Generally, the more educated people are, the less they wear uniforms later in life. Look at teachers, they
don't wear uniforms! Well-paid work tends to reject uniformity, and for good reason, the demands of
the future include qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, individuality, originality, a spontaneous
personality, being a self-starter, taking initiatives, being able to cope with change, etc. And even the
people who do wear a uniform later in life are unlikely to accept such a silly costume as a school
uniform. Only for prostitutes is the school uniform an obligatory part of their professional wardrobe
(and one may wonder why). What is the logic behind forcing children in uniforms? That children have to
get used to wearing a uniform, just in the unfortunate case that they will end up in such a job later in
life? If we turn around the same 'logic', students who are used to wearing uniforms would be
insufficiently prepared for plain-clothed work, if they did not wear plain clothes at school all the time.
Similarly, students would not be able to deal with people who didn't wear uniforms. It just doesn't make
sense.
There is one deeper argument. It goes like this: students waering uniforms will be accustomed to taking
a servile attitude which will help them find work later in life. Of course, the very opposite could be
argued with more reason. Does success in future demand a servile attitude? Or is it more helpful to be
creative, have an spontaneous and open personality, an inquisitive mind, be a self-starter who talks
things over, who has an independent mind searching for new ideas to make things work?
See? Examine an argument that supposedly favored school uniforms more closely, and it either doesn't
make sense or it turns into an argument against school uniforms. That's why schools who seek to
introduce uniforms typcially prefer to do so without any debate on the issue! Anyway, let's continue
with the next argument.
Equity?
The 'equity' argument goes like this: If children wear uniforms, they do not notice differences between
children from rich and from poor families. This 'equity' argument is often put forward by State Schools.
The reason for this may be that it is a purely socialist argument and it may be rejected for this reason
alone. In a democratic country, school should not indoctrinate children with a specific political ideology,
especially not a government-funded school. Interestingly, private schools typically are even more
fanatical about uniforms, but they are less inclined to use the 'equity' argument.
Anyway, even as a socialist argument, it does not make much sense. School uniforms may make all
students look alike. But why do the teachers not wear the same uniforms? Clearly, school does not like
any confusion as to who is the teacher and who is the student. The master-slave relationship that is so
obviously present at school is deliberately magnified by uniforms that emphasize this difference. The
10

teacher is allowed to dress casually, while the student has to wear silly clothes intended to make the
student look stupid.
Furthermore, there are often different uniforms for those in higher grades than for those in lower
grades, just like in the military a superior officer wears a less silly hat. This creates class differences.
Some will argue that this merely reflects existing differences. But the point is that if this were accurate,
it constituted an argument against uniformity. Moreover, school itself creates class differences. Class is a
trademark, if not an invention of school. Children are grouped together in classes according to age and
often according to gender and to perceived academic performance. Because parents want their children
to mix with children of their 'own class', they carefully select the neighborhood where they are going to
live. Houses close to private schools are often substantially more expensive than similar houses close to
state schools. On the street, children are identified by their uniform. 'Oh, you come from that poor
school, you dummy!' is an example of what children say to each other when they look at each other's
uniform. And even in the classroom, uniforms only accentuate differences in length, hair color and other
physical characteristics. Children consequently judge each other by their physical appearances. One can
argue whether it were better if children judged each other by their clothes instead.
Ease and Cost?
From a financial point of view, the socialist argument does not make sense either. School uniforms are
expensive, by their nature they are produced in limited numbers, they have to be special. Furthermore,
school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, because if they were made of pure cotton, they would
fade after a few washings and there would be color differences between the uniforms of various pupils,
which goes against the very idea of uniformity. Therefore, school uniforms are far more expensive than
the cheap cotton clothing people normally like to wear. The situation is also prone to exploitation by
unfair trade practices, unhealthy schemes, favoratism and cronyism, e.g. deals in which secret bribes are
paid for the privilege of exclusively and 'locally' producing and selling such school uniforms. One pays
the price for not being able to choose the often cheap imports from countries such as China and India.
Some parents argue that because of school uniforms, they do not have to buy many clothes for their
children, which saves them time and money. But most children will have plain clothes next to their
school uniform. The idea of a school uniform is that students wear the uniform at school, but do not
wear the uniform, say, at a disco or other events outside school. This effectively means that children will
need a double set of clothing.
The 'ease' argument says that school uniforms make it easier for students to choose what they are to
wear at school. But is it really a virtue of the school uniform that the 'choice' is made so easy? It would
be just as 'easy' for children to decide what to wear, if they only had, say, jeans and T-shirts in their
cupboards. This kind of 'choice' has nothing to do with wearing uniforms. If there are only jeans and T-
shirts in the cupboard, the child will have to wear jeans and T-shirts. The choice is easy, because there is
no alternative. If there were only a ski-outfit in the cupboard, the child had to wear the ski-outfit and
'choices' were equally 'easy'. The point is that the 'choice' is not so much made 'easy' by virtue of
uniformity, no, the choice is easy because there is no choice. If the kid-next-door happens to wear the
same clothes, say jeans, that didn't make the choice any easier for either of the children. One only has
choice if there is something to choose from. The real question is if choice is good for children. Taking
away children's right to choose what to wear does not make live any easier, it just makes children
accustomed to conformity, to following orders and walking in line without thinking, without making a

choice. This creates a huge amount of psychological problems later in life, it reduces the opportunity to
get good work, it reduces the overall quality of life, in some respects it is a form of child abuse to
systematically deny children choice.
As mentioned before, school uniforms are typically made of polycotton, as this keeps its color better.
Apart from being more expensive, polycotton is also very hot, which is a problem in hot climates. Special
sun-protective clothing is often too expensive, or cannot stand the frequent washing necessary as the
kids have to wear the same clothing every day. Uniforms tend to be uncomfortable - by nature a
uniform is a straightjacket that has been compromised in many ways in order to fit everybody. Uniforms
are far from easy in many respects.
The 'cost' argument is obviously a false argument. School uniforms do not keep the cost of clothing
down, because quite obviously all students also need plain clothes next to their uniform. When
compared to T-shirts and jeans, the school uniform is unlikely to be the cheap, comfortable, easy to use.
Private schools are even less likely to push the 'cost' argument, they deliberately choose for a rather
expensive outfit as a way to distinguish the students from 'poorer' schools. Obviously, the 'cost'
argument is inconsistent with the 'pride' argument that wants students to 'look well presented' even if
this comes at an extra cost. The very point of uniforms is that it is something that not everyone wears,
and this exclusivity obviously comes at a cost.
Pride?
The 'pride' argument goes like this: if students dress lousy, the school as a whole gets a bad name, which
diminishes the opportunity for all students to get a good job. Of course, this is just an argument against
dirty or otherwise less attractive clothes. Teachers may argue that school uniforms set a clear standard
of what the students are to wear, but school uniforms may just as well get dirty as any other clothes and
school uniforms may just as well tear apart after a fight or a fall. Having school uniforms does no
necessarily make it easier to see whether the clothes are dirty or ragged. Uniformity in itself is nothing
to be proud about. Note that students are not supposed to wear the uniforms at discos or other out-of-
school events. If the students were really supposed to be proud about their school, why are they only
supposed to wear the uniform at school? Note also that universities rarely demand students to wear
uniforms, yet few seem to be worried that this will make the students unemployable.
Safety?
The 'safety' argument is that school uniforms make it more difficult for unwelcome outsiders to infiltrate
the school grounds. But is 'safety' the real reason behind compulsory school uniforms? State schools are
typically huge with large numbers of teachers and other staff. Teachers are frequently ill or otherwise
absent, requiring relief-teachers to step in. The larger the school, the more difficult it is to know all
individual teachers and maintenance staff who might wonder down through the buildings. Students will
not be surprised to see an unfamiliar plain-clothed grown-up person on the school-grounds. They will
not even be surprised if such a person seems lost. If safety really was an important issue, then why are
teachers, maintenance staff and visiting parents not required to similarly wear the school uniform?
Many people come and leave the school grounds by car every day. Cars can often be driven right into
the middle of the school grounds, while it is virtually impossible to spot whether the occupants are
wearing uniforms or not. School uniforms in fact make it very easy for someone with bad intentions to

sneak in, disguised as a legitimate school student. Typically, anyone can buy second-hand uniforms at
the school or at nearby shops.

Debate.com “Should Students Wear Uniforms?
52% Say Yes 48% Say No
Yes, it can help with the bullying problem. It can
help the bullying problem because kids get picked
on for their clothes all the time, so if all the kids
had on the same clothes that problem would be
improved dramatically. Also, if kids wear regular
clothes, they basically have no restriction in how
they dress which leads to promiscuity. Promiscuity
can distract other students from paying attention
in school and maybe make them get lower grades.
That's why uniforms should be worn at all times.
Posted by: bengjsu
Bullying and gangs. With having uniforms you do
not have the discrimination of the different groups
and how the dress effects the people and how
they act. Without the uniforms kids can start gangs
and can start groups with the same sort of dress
they wear and while the uniform is restricting kids
from bullying it is also stooping the gangs
Posted by: cbrown
Yes, for practicality and unity I find it so much
easier in the mornings when I have something
specific to put on. It saves time and also money, as
I buy far fewer clothes than I would otherwise.
Having a uniform also closes the gap between the
different types of people, and I believe this is a
good thing.
Posted by: Duke Smith
Everyone should have the same right to
individuality. Kids shouldn't have to wear
uniforms. All it does is make school a dull and
lifeless place that no one wants to be in. Students
should be able to express their feelings and
emotions by wearing regular clothes. I'm a kid
myself, and actually, I couldn't care less about
them.
Posted by: anoymouse
Uniforms are wrong. You can't really be you when
you wear uniforms. It takes your individuality
away. We need freedom- it's America isn't it? We
have to stick up for who we are, and how we do
that is through our clothes. Whether we are
happy, dark, or crazy, we show it, without even
having to say it, through clothes.
Posted by: Anonymous
No nono. I do not think students should wear
school uniforms because kids express themselves
by what they wear and the colors they do, because
in other words it's freedom of speech. This is a free
country. Also some parents may not be able to pay
the amount needed for the uniforms.
No, everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. Kids shouldn't have to wear uniforms.
All it does is make school a dull and lifeless place
that no one wants to be in. Students should be
able to express their feelings and emotions by
wearing regular clothes. I'm a kid myself, and
actually, I couldn't care less about them.
11

SCHOOL UNIFORMS REDUCE STUDENT ABSENCES, DISCIPLINARY
PROBLEMS
April 5, 2010-Houston- Mike Emery
Fewer schools are including "Best Dressed" as a category in their end-of-the- year student polls. As public schools
continue to adopt dress code policies, more students are unable to make individual fashion statements.
A recent University of Houston study suggests that this might be a good thing as school uniforms can positively impact
students' grades, attendance and behavior.
UH economics professor Scott Imberman and graduate student Elizabetta Gentile surveyed administrative data from 160
public schools in a large urban school district. This data included student demographics, as well as academic, disciplinary
and attendance records that had been filed from 1993 - 2006.
By applying econometric techniques - combining economic theory with statistics - Imberman and Gentile compared
students from schools that required uniforms to peers from non-uniformed institutions. They specifically focused on
student outcomes that emerged once a school required uniforms. Their study is documented in the paper "Dressed for
Success: Do School Uniforms Improve Student Behavior, Attendance and Achievement?"
Their findings show bolstered attendance, academics and behavior in middle and high school students once their schools
adopted uniforms. Imberman and Gentile noted that the biggest improvement was among female students.
"After uniforms were adopted, girls in middle school and high school missed one day less of school annually," Imberman
said. "That sounds like a modest improvement, but in terms of educational interventions, it is challenging to motivate a
progression in this area. This is fairly substantial."
They also found that once uniforms were mandated, the school district was more likely to retain its female students at all
grade levels.
"Often, parents withdraw their children from a school district due to dissatisfaction," Imberman said. "This data suggests
that uniforms helped schools increase parental satisfaction and encouraged students not to leave for charter or private
schools."
The quantitative nature of the study does not offer direct insight as to why uniforms produce such favorable results from
students. It does, however, point to the fact that students' attendance, test scores and behavior consistently improved
from the time uniforms were introduced.
"The benefits increased over time," Imberman said. "The effects were smaller during the first year uniforms were
adopted but grew in subsequent years. We interpret this as indication that there may have been an adjustment period.
12

The uniforms might have taken some time to have an effect and become ingrained within the schools' environments."

What a North Face jacket means in South Korea
Puffy down outdoor jackets are increasingly becoming symbols of class division and targets of school
violence
By Frances Cha
According to a Korean blog post that made the rounds late last month, North Face jacke wearers can be
immediately classified according to the type of North Face jacket they wear. This is apparently a
common phenomenon in elementary and middle schools in particular, where the jackets are so popular
they have been dubbed "the uniform worn over the uniform," or "backbreakers," (thus called for the
work put in by parents in order to afford the jackets for their children).
The rankings also specify what type of student should be wearing which specific type of North Face
jacket.
At the bottom of the scale is the North Face Nuptse 2, cost ₩250,000 (approximately US$220), which is
generally worn by “losers" (찌질이).
Next on the list is the “common” Nuptse 1, worn both by “losers” and “gang members” (일진).
Two categories up is the Dry Loft, ₩470,000. "Losers don't wear the jackets starting from this category
because they're afraid of having them swiped by gang members."
At the top, priced at ₩700,000 is the “rare” Himalayan Down Parka, the most expensive model worn by
“the boss.”
As laughable as this list may seem, according to some students it simply puts into words what remains
unspoken in school halls.
“You can definitely label people according to what North Face jackets they wear,” says Park Jin, 14, who
is the class president of his middle school in western Seoul.
“If you wear a really expensive one, then the iljin (gang members) in school come and take it from you.”
13

Bullying: What are the Differences between Boys and Girls?
education.com
Bullying is defined as a form of aggression that is repetitively exerted against an individual who feels
unable to defend him/herself (10). This aggression may occur directly against someone in a physical (for
example, slapping, pushing) or verbal (for example, swearing, name calling) manner. Bullying can also be
indirect whereby the targeted person experiences the aggression through others (for example, gossiped
about, excluded from a social activity).
How are Girls Involved in Bullying?
Through Peer Group
Girls tend to bully other girls indirectly through the peer group. Rather than bully a targeted child
directly, girls more often share with other girls (and boys) hurtful information about the targeted child
(4). For example, a girl may tell a group of girls an embarrassing story about another girl. They may
create mean names, gossip, and come up with ways of letting the girl know that she is rejected from the
peer group (for example, saying mean things about her on social networking sites such as Facebook or
MySpace, using her email address to send harassing messages to everyone on her email list, texting her
a death threat). These are called “relational” bullying because they attack relationships and friendships.
How are Boys Involved in Bullying?
Physical
In contrast to girls, boys of any age and ethnic group tend to be physically aggressive (e.g., hit, kick, slap,
push, or punch) (1, 2, 9, 11, 14, 20). Also, research shows that physical abuse tends to occur more often
among boys than girls at all educational levels (e.g., elementary, high school, college) (13, 15, 16). In
addition, male college students tend to bully and be bullied through physical and verbal forms of
bullying (e.g., name-calling) more often than college girls (15).
Also boys may be more accepting of bullying, than are girls (17). That is, boys may like a girl even if she
bullies others and like other boys who bully. Girls may still befriend boys who bully, but tend to dislike
girls who bully. At the core of these differences are children’s and, indeed, societal beliefs about
acceptable behaviors for boys and girls. Many people may see bullying among boys as “just boys being
boys”. So, girls may accept this attitude and tolerate boys’ bullying. However, girls may be less accepting
of girls who bully if it is seen as overly aggressive.
14

Effects of Bullying: Signs That A Child Is Being Bullied
All types of bullying may have a tremendous impact on targeted children. They may feel depressed,
anxious, eat or sleep less or more, have difficulty concentrating on school work, have trouble making
friends with others, lie, steal, run away from home, avoid school or even consider suicide (1, 3, 13, 18).
Children may not want to tell anyone if they feel they deserve this type of treatment, caused it, or that
telling would make it worse (which the bully may have threatened). There may also be long-term effects
of bullying on bullies themselves (13). Some children who bully at a young age may continue to use
aggression and control in other relationships as they grow older (13). For example, boys may start dating
earlier than other boys and be aggressive in these relationships. Also, as adults they may be aggressive
towards colleagues, use aggression with their own children, and engage in criminal acts including sexual
assault. Girls involved in significant bullying in the early grade school years may experience depression
over a long term, attempt suicide, or develop an eating disorder (19).
Again, individual men and women, and boys and girls experience bullying in unique ways. Research has
documented some of the differences mentioned in this article. It is important to keep in mind, however,
that boys may also experience indirect forms of bullying, and girls may experience direct forms. In
addition, children involved in bullying may both be targeted and exert aggression themselves.
The Importance for Parents: What Parents Can Do To Prevent Bullying
For parents, it’s important to recognize signs in their sons and daughters that they may be involved in
some or many forms of bullying and to address these experiences as soon as they arise. For example,
checking in with children at the end of the day can include conversation about academic subjects as well
as peer relationships. Questions such as the following, may encourage children to discuss their
friendship experiences with their parents:
1. ‘What did you do at recess today?”, or
2. “How is your friend (name) doing these days?”
When children express negative emotions about their peers it is helpful to acknowledge these feelings,
encourage them that it’s normal to feel this way, and to discuss practical strategies together, especially
those that the child considers most helpful.

Pros and Cons of School Uniforms
By SarabethAsaff for kids.lovetoknow.com
Pros Cons
The commonly cited advantages of uniforms are
increased academic performance, reduced
behavioral problems, increased social harmony,
and reduced costs of clothing students.
Academic Outcomes
Many educators believe that students who wear
school uniforms perform better academically in
school, and a study done in 1998 by Notre
Dame shows a slight statistical elevation in student
performance among students who wear uniforms.
Students are often so focused on their wardrobe
that it distracts them from learning.
Some experts believe that a mandatory uniform
policy will remove this distraction and improve
student attention, believing that uniforms set a
more serious tone within the school environment
that is conducive to learning and can improve
student performance. They also believe that
school uniforms improve student attendance.
Many parents report that their children spend a
great deal of time planning and choosing their
daily clothing and that uniforms allow students to
use this time to sleep or study.
Behavioral Outcomes
It is generally thought that students who wear
school uniforms behave more appropriately in the
school environment. They believe that uniforms
dictate a stricter atmosphere and that students
who wear uniforms are more likely to follow
school rules. The US Department of Education
maintains that the mandatory use of standardized
dress reduces violence within the school.
Social Outcomes
Uniforms can be a social equalizer.
Some experts believe that, more than in any other
area, school uniforms improve the social outcomes
Self-Expression
Many educators and sociology experts arguethat
requiring children to wear standardized uniforms
stifles their self-expression. Self-expression is an
important part of child development and some
experts believe that curbing it with uniforms can
be detrimental to children. Experts also believe
that students who are forced to wear uniforms will
only find other, less appropriate ways to express
themselves, possibly through inappropriate use of
makeup and jewelry.
Individuality
Some experts believe that public education
attempts to strip children of their individuality.
They believe that public education does not meet
the needs of children who do not fall in the norm,
and that uniforms attempt to force every student
into one mold. They see standard dress as yet
another way for public educators to remove
student individuality where they should be
embracing and celebrating diversity. Some experts
believe it is not in the best interest of the child to
try to control socialization, which is a part of
human nature. They believe that such use of
school uniforms does not prepare children for the
real world, in which they will be judged by their
appearance.
Cost
There are just as many experts who believe that
the cost of school uniforms is a negative factor as
those who see it as a positive factor. Some experts
believe that it increases the amount of clothing
parents will have to buy for their children because
the children will still want and need clothing for
the hours they are not in school. Uniforms can be
more expensive for a family who buys from
15

in a school environment. Clothing and fashion are
often at the root of social conflict. Children are
often ridiculed by other children because of the
way they dress. Many children use clothing to
express themselves and to define themselves. This
self-expression and definition often leads to the
formation of cliques in the school environment.
Many students feel that they are judged according
to what they wear by other students, as well as by
teachers and administrators. School uniforms
remove these factors from the social environment
within the school, thus relieving students from the
pressure to fit in. Experts believe that, by
improving the social environment through
mandatory standardized dress, both academic and
behavioral outcomes improve.
Cost
In some cases, the use of school uniforms is more
affordable to families because there is not as much
pressure to buy expensive, trendy clothing.
Uniforms are made to last, and can be washed
easily and frequently. After the initial cost of
buying uniforms, there is no need to spend as
much money on clothing.
second-hand stores or who relies on hand-me-
down clothing from friends and family. Some
experts believe the cost is a negative aspect of
school uniforms because there is no use for them
outside of school.
Comfort
Critics argue that different types of clothing feel
comfortable to different people. Some children are
more comfortable in a specific material or style of
clothing. Uniforms reduce one's ability to choose
clothing that fits individual comfort needs. Experts
believe that children need to feel comfortable in
order to maximize learning, and that uniforms can,
in this way, deter academic success for some
children.
Delays Transition into Adulthood
Some experts feel that self-expression and self-
identification as a teenager helps prepare them to
make the leap into adulthood. By forcing
teenagers to wear school uniforms, it limits their
ability to express in this manner, which may delay
their transition into adulthood. One study done in
the state of Louisianafound that the only benefits
derived from school uniforms ended once the
students left middle school, and that no benefits
were found for high school students.
Expert Opinions
Many educators and experts believe that, although in theory uniforms should improve academic,
behavioral and social outcomes, in reality they do not. These experts argue that the studies of schools
who initiate uniforms do not report improvement in any of these areas; therefore, if the desired
outcomes are not reached, there is no valid reason to standardize student dress.
There are also, of course, experts who maintain that uniforms do have advantages. Every school district
decides on this issue separately, usually following much debate surrounding the advantages and
disadvantages of requiring students to wear uniforms.

School uniforms are a bad idea
http://www.sd71.bc.ca/sd71/school/courtmid/_2006_student_web/7_6/2_c_Erica/s
chool_uniforms_are_a_bad_idea.htm
If school had school uniforms then the kids would have to wear something that they didn’t want
to wear.
What about the kid’s individuality if they are confined to wear something they don’t want to
wear then that is destroying kids rights. “Just because we are kids that doesn’t mean that we
should not be ignored” “we have rights too”.
If school’s had school uniforms then it might cause problems in the student’s. Because the
student’s might rebel and start to do stuff that teacher’s do when they don’t get paid enough.
Go on strike or protest, a sit in that’s when kids and sometimes teacher’s sit in and refuse to do
work and they do that until they give in. so if they had school uniforms there might be problems.
If the school’s had school uniforms then there could be problems with the cost. If a family was
poor and The school just had a meeting about the students and them not following the dress
code so they have decided to put school uniforms in to actions. But what happens if they poor
family cant pay for the school uniforms. Will the kids get kicked out or will the kids get the
uniforms and the parents will have to work until they pay off their debt to the school or what.
If school’s had school uniforms then what would happen if the kids didn’t like them? Well the
kids might come back and refuse to wear them. They might have taken a sewing class so they
could make them different they would change them to look really good. Because some student’s
(like me) I would probably not like them, not want to wear them. So I would change them into
something tighter, shorter or twisting and winding them to make them look much better
If schools had school uniforms then the kids would probably not be happy. What if they just put
a dress code on? Then the kids would have guide lings but they would be ably top wear what
ever they want whenever they want. But with limits so they don’t go over bored and show un-
needed parts of your body. So they can’t all wear the same thing because that would be a
problem.
Just because some parents have to wear school uniforms doesn’t mean that kids should. Some
parents have to wear uniforms so they can think that the kids have to. Well that’s not right.
They chose to wear uniforms when they got a job ant they know that some have to wear
uniforms. So just because they have to doesn’t make use have to. We should have to wear
school uniforms when we are older when we get jobs.
I learned that children from kinder garden and up have to wear school uniforms. I mean like why
would they make children in kinder garden wear school uniforms they are not breaking any rules
they don’t wear inappropriate cloths they are being dressed by there parents maybe not all of
them but a lot of them are. But its not like they are buying mini skirts are tube tops they are
wearing overalls, dresses or shorts that like are so long they are like pants. So why make
children in kinder garden to grade tree have to wear school uniforms
16

Arguments Against School Uniforms
http://www.libertarian-logic.com/against-school-uniforms.html
Let's examine the arguments against school uniforms in government schools.
Despite the enthusiasm for uniforms, there are plenty of good sound reasons to avoid them. As noted
in my discussion of the benefits of school uniforms in government schools, they are something that
could work well for certain individuals, but the idea that "one size fits all" just isn't appealing to this
Libertarian.
So let's start. Making the top of the list is the idea that this policy is a "one size" fits all, and we all
know that isn't true.
This is a common and irritating approach to government. Would you like it if a retail outlet treated
you like a shoplifter? Of course not, but that's exactly what a "one size fits all" approach to doing
business would have your local retailers doing.
1. We should have the courage to identify bad actors and implement measures directed at
them. Instead, we punish every student with a "one size fits all" mentality. If you look
closely at the overall student body, you'll likely find that there is a small percentage of
students that are gang members or drug dealers or miscreants of some sort.
2. Why not target these individuals for control measures instead of everyone? Why not target
these individuals for expulsion instead of treating the entire student body as if they were a
threat of some sort?
3. Our system of laws and regulations typically punish everyone for the actions of a few. It's
always the few who things for the rest of us because of our proclivity to broadly apply a rule
instead of taking the time to sort out who the trouble-makers are and deal with them
individually.
4. Before we further this discussion, perhaps you'd care to see a presentation from a school
"outfitter" named Michael Apfelberg to see what he thinks about the negatives of school
uniforms. His observations, as a provider of school uniforms, ought to be enlightening.
5. Wow, only three negatives from this school "outfitter." Imagine that! And, his negative
number 3 was pretty lame at that. It makes me think that perhaps he isn't all that willing to
look at the other side.
6. So, let's look at more arguments against school uniforms, and I'll dedicate reason #2 to our
friend from New Hampshire, Mr. Apfelberg, who can't seem to think of reasons why school
uniforms are a bad idea.
7. It creates yet another special interest group that wants to convince the government to do
something that is in their favor. Perhaps our "outfitter," Mr. Apfelberg couldn't bring himself
to create reasoning against his own special interest. After all, people like him will be
petitioning the government (perhaps at multiple levels) to endorse the idea of school
uniforms.
8. We don't need more special interest groups, and that's reason enough for me to be against
17

school uniforms.
9. Implementing a school uniform program by itself reinforces the idea that simply changing
what students wear will make a difference in their behavior. It's a type of "preventive law." A
restriction that is supposed to stop some undesirable behavior.
10. The fact that we try it in the first place gives it some level of credibility as if student dress is
really the root cause of poor behavior and lower performance in school. It's not, so it's
reasonable to be against school uniforms because there isn't a cause and effect relationship -
something else is causing the violence, bad behavior and poor performance.
11. It's an idea for fixing problems that allows us to conveniently avoid proper analysis that
would identify causes of student violence and poor performance, and create appropriate
solutions.
12. First and foremost, we need to clearly identify the problems. Then, we need to identify the
immediate causes of the problems. Only then can we target "fixes" that address the causes. If
we effectively address the causes, then the problems will be reduced or eliminated.
13. I'm against school uniforms simply because a lack of school uniforms isn't what's causing all
the problems. As George Carlin once said: "We don't have time for rational solutions."
14. If everyone wears the same clothes, that doesn't transform individual students into
wonderful community members with like minds and spirit. There needs to be more at work
to create such "oneness," and it takes years to build such a culture.
15. This type of thinking is a typical American "drive through" and "just add water" approach that
imagines such transformations could be created by quick and simple methods.
16. It's very much like our foreign policies, we forget about the culture of others and how that
can't be changed overnight, no matter how much we wish it to be. We apparently have the
same arrogance when it comes to the culture of communities and individuals.
17. Requiring uniforms isn't the role of government, unless that same government organization
is providing uniforms for their troops, and history shows that some countries have done just
that. Listen to observations from George Carlin who was also against school uniforms.
18. If we allow school officials to prescribe school uniforms, then we can expect rules on hair
styles, makeup, deodorant, dental hygiene, fingernail length, shoes and so on. I don't like to
let the "camel's nose under the tent," so I'm against school uniforms as a broad brush
approach to solving problems.
19. Following the lead from George Carlin, I believe it's very likely that forcing kids to dress alike
will only help create more followers than leaders. If you become accustomed to being told
what to do, then how do you handle it when you finally graduate and you're placed in an
environment where you're not told what to do?
20. I think school uniforms set some students up for failure when it comes to making their own
decisions about who they are and how they're going to present themselves to the world.
21. If you're in favor of individual responsibility, then you're likely to be against school uniforms
because such rules don't foster individuality or individual responsibility, they diminish it.
22. Unless you're going straight from a government school into the military,the idea of a dress

code isn't the way the real world works. People in a free society dress they way they would
like to. Especially in America, the melting pot, we have all manner of dress that originates
from our cultural differences.
23. I thought we were supposed to be inclusive, accepting and tolerant.
24. Self-image can be adversely affected by forcing someone to wear something that they
dislike. Just think of all the unusual clothes that some people wear - baggy pants, jackets with
arms too long, long legged pants that stack up around the ankles, hats on backwards and
sideways, and blue jeans that are washed out and torn at the knees. We're talking about
personal choices in dress here.
25. Now, imagine that parents forced their kids to go to school with worn out, ripped and
misfitting clothes that were placed on them backwards or inside out. This wouldn't be
personal choice, but it could be viewed as quite uncalled for.
26. I could envision a lot of conflict arising from forcing a child to wear something they dislike.
The same would be true if government officials from the school system told you how to dress,
and that's why I'm against school uniforms.
27. If you think baggy pants allow students to bring weapons to school, then I suggest that clothes
aren't the cause of weapons, it's something else. Let's focus on logical cause and effect
relationships, not band-aids like school uniforms.
28. School uniforms diminish free expression at a time when young people are trying to establish
who they are among throngs of others. There is such a thing as distractions in the classroom,
but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis or with a reasonable dress code.
29. Punishing free expression by everyone because of the actions of a few is a bad precedence.
It's not what freedom is all about.
30. Uniforms cost money, and that's an additional financial burden placed on families. If a family
would like to purchase a set of clothes for their children to wear to school - "school clothes" -
then that's just fine.
31. Requiring a uniform to be purchased from a supplier isn't the business of school authorities,
and the additional cost isn't justified. It's just another example of government mandates that
aren't funded.
You get the idea. I'm against school uniforms, and I think most freedom-minded people are too.
America is strong because we are composed of individuals who are allowed to be leaders and
innovators. We're strong because our government is supposed to be limited in scope and depth.
I'm against school uniforms because it's more government, less freedom, less individual decision-
making, and there is no clear link between school uniforms and causes of problems in schools. I went
to government schools that didn't require uniforms, and it didn't seem to affect our performance one
little bit.
If you believe that a lack of school uniforms is the cause of troubles in government schools, then you'll
also likely believe that disease is caused by a lack of medication. And, this begs me to repeat this
important point: this Libertarian is against school uniforms because we haven't done our homework
to show that trouble in school is caused by a lack of school uniforms.

An Argument Against School Uniforms
By Joel M., Hinckley, UT
teenink.com
There is an ongoing discussion in this nation about school uniforms, whether or not they help with
behavior problems, and increase test scores. As an eighth grade student at Delta Middle School, I do
not want school uniforms. In this paper I will present the argument against wearing school uniforms. I
will include, personal opinion and will also site research.
Kade A., a sixth grade student, when asked about school uniforms said, “No, I don’t like them,
because they are uncomfortable, and make you feel like you are in your church clothes all the time.”
Daycen J., another student said, “I don’t like school uniforms because they take away student’s
individuality.”
Dr. Alan Hilfer, senior psychologist in Brooklyn’s Children’s and Adolescent Unit at Maimonides
Medical Center states:
"Clothes are a source of expression for children, and as kids get older, they become increasingly
resentful of uniforms….By instituting a uniform policy, schools are taking away kids’ individuality---
schools need to decide if that sacrifice is worth making.”
Dr. Hilfer is talking about whether taking away student’s individuality is worth the payoff of decreased
behavior problems, and increased test scores. A study done by David L. Brunsma , University of
Alabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of Notre Dame, entitled Effects of Student Uniforms on
Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement, showed that uniforms
did not lead to an improvement in these areas. Their conclusion was:
“Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variables
such as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing uniforms did
not appear to have any significantly different academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peer
group structures with proschool attitudes than other students.”
One area that might be of concern is the lessening of gang related problems, and fashion wars. A
study published in 1995, by Lillian O. Holloman, a clothing and textiles professor at Virginia Polytechic
Institute and State University, entitled Violence and Other Antisocial Behaviors in Public Schools: Can
Dress Codes Help Solve the Problem? explores the problems the students can get into because of the
way they dress. The study says:
“Gang colors and insignias, whether worn intentionally or unintentionally, can get a student jumped
or worse. Status clothes, such as team jackets of professional sports teams, leather coats and designer
sneakers, have led to thefts, sometimes by knife or at gunpoint.”
18

This may be true in some areas of the country, such as low-income, inner city areas, but I do not
believe this to be true in the Millard County School District. I cannot recall any accounts of violence
against students caused by a student’s clothing selection. I believe that before you put into action a
school uniform policy based on such fears, you need to take into account the area the school is in, the
economic level of the population, the number of people involved in gangs and the amount of gang
related activity in the community.
Most of the articles that I have read about whether wearing school uniforms changes behavior and
increases test scores, are inconclusive. Most of the time other rules are put into place along with the
school uniforms, which may lead to a desired behavior. However, the uniform itself cannot be entirely
responsible for the change.
Middle School/ Junior High is a time of maturing, physically, mentally, academically, and emotionally.
Schools need to create an environment that encourages students individuality and motivate them to
challenge themselves and inspire self confidence. I feel that school uniforms diminish creativity and
self expression.

Scientific School Uniform Research
The scientific research on uniforms is just starting to come in. The following discusses a paper from
The Journal of Education Research (Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62) by David L.
Brunsma from the University of Alabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of Notre Dame:
Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic
Achievement
This study showed that uniforms did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use,
or academic achievement.
Here's the abstract from their study:
Mandatory uniform policies have been the focus of recent discourse on public school reform.
Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specific
behavioral and academic outcomes. Tenth grade data from The National Educational Longitudinal
Study of 1988 was used to test empirically the claims made by uniform advocates. The findings
indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, or
attendance. Contrary to current discourse, the authors found a negative effect of uniforms on
student academic achievement. Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environments and
student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement
and reform.
Brunsma and Rockquemore wanted to investigate the extraordinary claims being made about how
wonderful school uniforms are, particularly from the Long Beach California. It was being claimed that
mandatory uniform policies were resulting in massive decreases (50 to 100 percent) in crime and
disciplinary problems.
It is typically assumed, as exemplified in Long Beach, that uniforms are the sole factor causing direct
change in numerous behavioral and academic outcomes. Those pronouncements by uniform
proponents have raised strident objections and created a political climate in which public school
uniform policies have become highly contested. The ongoing public discourse is not only entrenched in
controversy but also largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hence, it now seems critical
that empirical analysis should be conducted to inform the school uniform debate. In this study, we
investigated the relationship between uniforms and several outcomes that represent the core
elements of uniform proponent's claims. Specifically, we examined how a uniform affects attendance,
behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. We believe that a thorough analysis
19

of the arguments proposed by uniform advocates will add critical insight to the ongoing debate on the
effects of school uniform policies. (Brunsma and Rockquemore, 1998, pg. 54)
The authors point out that if uniforms work, they should see some of the following trends in schools
with uniforms:
1. Student uniforms decrease substance use (drugs).
2. Student uniforms decrease behavioral problems.
3. Student uniforms increase attendance.
4. Student uniforms increase academic achievement.
They suspected that whenother variables affecting these four items were accounted for, it would be
shown that uniforms were not the cause for improvement.
How They Did Their Study
They used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and three follow-
up studies. These studies tracked a national sample of eighth graders (in 1988) from a wide variety of
public and private schools and followed their academic careers through college. Some of the data
collected in the studies included uniform policies, student background (economic and minority
status), peer group (attitudes towards school and drug use), school achievement, and behavioral
characteristics (how often did each student get into trouble, fights , suspensions, etc.). The authors
concentrated on data from the students 10th grade year.
Some of the independent variables they considered were sex, race, economic status, public or private
school, academic or vocational "tracking", rural or urban district, peer proschool attitudes, academic
preparedness, the student's own proschool attitudes, and most importantly, whether or not the
students wore uniforms. The researchers wanted to determine if there was a tie between these
variables and desirable behavior by the students. The areas that they were looking for improvement
as a result of the previous variables included reduced absenteeism, fewer behavioral problems,
reduced illegal drug use, and improved standardized test scores. The researchers considered this
second group of variables to be the dependent variables. The goal of their study was to determine if
there was any relationship between the independent variables (particularly uniforms) and the
dependent variables.
The authors took all of the data for these variables from the NELS:88 study and performed a
regression analysis to see if any of the independent variables were predictors of any of the dependent
variables. If there was a strong tie in the data between any two variables ( uniforms and absenteeism,
for example), it would show up in the study as a correlation coefficient close to 1 or -1. A correlation
coefficient near 0 indicates no relationship between the two variables. So, if wearing uniforms had a
large effect on behavior, we would expect to see a correlation coefficient of say 0.5 between uniforms
and measures of good behavior. If we see a very low correlation coefficient between these two, then
we know that wearing uniforms has no real effect on behavior.

Results
The only positive result for uniforms that the study showed was a very slight relationship between
uniforms and standardized achievement scores. The correlation coefficient was 0.05, indicating a very
slight possible relationship between the two variables, but showing that uniforms are a very poor
predictor of standardized test scores and that the relationship is much weaker than has been
indicated in the uniform debate. Notice that 0,05 is much closer to 0 than to 1. Other than this one
weak, possible relationship, uniforms struck out. In the authors own words:
Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variables
such as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing uniforms did
not appear to have any significantly different academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peer
group structures with proschool attitudes than other students. Moreover, the negative correlations
between the attitudinal variables and the various outcomes of interest are significant; hence, the
predictive analysis provides more substantive results.
In other words, the authors saw no relationship between wearing uniforms and the desirable
behavior (reduced absenteeism, reduced drug usage, improved behavior). They did, however, see a
strong relationship between academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and peers having proschool
attitudes and the desirable behaviors. Furthermore, they saw no relationship between wearing
uniforms and the variables that do predict good behavior (academic preparedness, proschool
attitudes, and peers having proschool attitudes).
Conclusion
Based upon this analysis, the authors were forced to reject the ideas that uniforms improved
attendance rates, decreased behavioral problems, decreased drug use, or improved academic
achievement. The authors did find that proschool attitudes from students and their peers and good
academic preparedness did predict the desired behavior. They saw that wearing uniforms did not lead
to improvements in proschool attitudes or increased academic preparation.

School Uniforms: Panacea or Band-Aid?
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin130.shtml
Does requiring students to wear uniforms directly affect school environment and
student achievement, or is it the equivalent of painting the walls of a crumbling
building -- merely cosmetic? What does the research say? What do students, teachers,
and parents say?
Shopping for back-to-school clothes was just a little different this year for gap-toothed third grader
AdiSirkes, who needed new clothes after his school adopted a uniform dress policy. Next year, he'll go
to a different school, one that mandates different uniforms -- and that will mean yet another whole
new wardrobe.
"My son's an unusual size," his mother Irit told Education World, "so it's hard to find him clothes
anyway. Limiting what I buy to certain colors makes shopping for him not only more expensive but
that much harder."
"My fifth-grade daughter used to like school," added Connie Terry, "but last year, her school switched
to uniforms. Now when I ask her how school is going, the first thing out of her mouth is she hates
uniforms. Even during the summer time, she'd say, 'I hate to wear uniforms.' My daughter likes to be
individual, to wear what she wants. She doesn't want to have to wear what everyone else is wearing.
It doesn't make her feel good about herself; it doesn't make her feel special."
Despite complaints like these, public schools throughout the United States are adopting uniform dress
policies.
In 1994, the Long Beach, California, school system began requiring that students wear uniforms. The
system recorded a drop in suspensions, assaults, thefts, vandalism, and weapon and drug violations
and an increase in attendance. Ten states -- plus scores of individual communities -- followed suit and
adopted some type of school uniform regulation. Included in those ranks were schools in Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, Phoenix, Seattle, and
St. Louis. This school year, 550,000 New York City elementary students are wearing uniforms.
Although most evidence is anecdotal, the Long Beach schools weren't the only schools to note
improved behavior. Chicago school officials found a drop in gang violence after adopting school
uniforms. Birmingham schools reported a drop in weapon and drug incidents, and Houston schools
reported a decrease in violent crime. Miami-Dade County schools, however, found that fights nearly
doubled at their middle schools after the school district adopted a uniform policy.
"Many schools here draw from varied socioeconomic levels," Bev Heller, a teacher at Fienberg-Fisher
Elementary in Miami-Dade County told Education World. "Wealthier students may own every uniform
accessory and wear designer bracelets or shoes that light up; others -- if they do own uniforms -- have
very basic ones. Adopting uniforms certainly did not blur the socioeconomic lines in our student
body."
"Our school has had a mandatory uniform policy for three years," she continued. "There is a big sign
in our school, 'Uniforms Mandatory,' but not all the students wear them. Our student body is
20

transient, and purchasing different uniforms every time a student moves can be very expensive.
Requiring school uniforms could be a hardship, especially on students who frequently move."
HOW TO ADOPT A UNIFORM POLICY
Because of results like those in Long Beach, Chicago, and Birmingham, many schools are adopting
uniform dress policies. Experts offer advice to those schools on how best to initiate it. Among the tips
included in the U.S. Department of Education's manual are the following:
Involve parents and students from the beginning, including getting their input on what the
uniform will look like. Students are more likely to wear a uniform they think is attractive than
one they hate. Make sure there are choices for types of tops and bottoms and perhaps even
colors so the uniform looks good on different body types.
Decide what the ramifications will be if a student does not wear a uniform. Will the school
overlook it? Will the child be sent home? Will your school give the child a uniform from an
available supply and assess one fee if it is not returned and a smaller cleaning fee when it is?
Decide in advance how your school will deal with this issue.
Include an arrangement for students who cannot afford or choose not to wear uniforms.
Some school districts collect old uniforms to distribute to needy families. Some distribute
donated money so parents themselves can select their children's uniforms. Others permit
students who do not wish to wear uniforms to transfer to a school that does not require
them, and some school districts have an opt-out policy.
"Before initiating a uniform policy, administrators need to investigate options and select the ones that
best meet the individual school's needs," states the manual. "As the courts have yet to decide if a
public school district can make students wear uniforms, some sort of opt-out policy is definitely
desirable."
WHY UNIFORMS?
Proponents of school uniforms believe that in addition to reducing assaults, thefts, vandalism, and
weapon and drug use in schools, requiring students to wear uniforms
increases security by making it obvious who is not supposed to be on campus;
helps parents by reducing the cost of being fashionable;
helps students resist peer pressure;
blurs socioeconomic lines because people cannot judge others by their clothes;
reduces arguments over clothes because kids have no reason to fight over or steal one

Research Activity

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Research Activity

Similaire à Research Activity (8)

Plus de Sam Landfried

Plus de Sam Landfried (15)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Research Activity