Dress Codes in Public Schools - Essay Example

Karla Peña Christine Mojar, Esq. English Composition II January 23, 2007 Dress s in public schools – do they provide a safer environment I) Introduction /Thesis: Dress Code regulations and School Uniform policies should be reevaluated before enforcing them on our public schools, because they have not been proven to reduce violence in schools, or increase academic achievement, or have beneficial social effects. Also, these policies leave the door open to litigation against schools and school districts. If re-evaluation is impracticable, these regulations should be summarily removed. II) Background: a) Origin: Public schools in the U.S. have been assigned the authority and accountability of educating students properly while continuing keeping in existence a well-behaved and result-oriented environment in which learning can thrive. In recent years, many school and district officials have claimed that there is an increase in improper activities within the school environment, such as violence, gang activity, theft of clothing and conflicts against discipline (Madrid, et al). This led to the introduction of dress codes or uniforms by officials in school districts across the country. Dress codes lay down ‘what must not be worn,’ while uniform policies decree ‘what must be worn’ (Anderson). Private schools were the first to adopt dress codes or uniform policies. Public schools soon started emulating their example (Education Commission of the States). b) Purpose of uniforms: The education officials protested that a state of continuous confrontation had been created between school authorities trying to do their duty by producing an environment conducive to learning, and students rebelling against the restraints of acceptable, protected behavior (Pedzich). They propagated dress codes and uniforms as the way to achieve a safe, secure and orderly school environment. In this context, the school dress code or uniform policy is meant to be a deterrent to violence, gang activity, theft and misbehavior while promoting academic excellence and social development. c) Evolvement: Cherry Hill Elementary school (Baltimore, Maryland) has the distinction of being the first U.S. public school to implement a uniform policy in the year 1987. Long Beach California Unified School District (LBUSD) became the first school district to adopt a public school uniform policy in 1994. The biggest boost was received when President Bill Clinton catapulted the issue to national prominence in January 1996 when he officially permitted it during his State of the Union Address. Clinton emphasized his support for the matter by ordering the U.S. Department of Education to deliver a brochure called “A Manual of School Uniforms” to all the country’s 16,000 school districts. Swift developments followed the President’s official sanction: 486 out of 675 New York elementary public schools adopted a school uniform policy by 1999; the following year, 37 State (and the District of Columbia) legislatures (including Tennessee, Virginia, Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Louisiana and Indiana) passed policies authorizing districts to formulate their own public school dress codes or uniform policies (Education Commission of the States). At present there is no direct mandate requiring students to adopt certain dress codes or a particular uniform from any State legislature or the State Department of Education. It is not clear just how many districts and public schools have adopted a dress code or a uniform policy, but the tendency to adopt such policies continues to grow, while at the same time, the debate over dress codes or uniform policies continues to rage to and fro (Education Commission of the States). III) Violence: a) School safety: Proponents state that schools are safer and more secure environments as a result of implementing dress codes or uniform policies, claiming it has reduced acts of violence and thefts over designer wear and costly shoes. In addition, school authorities are able to identify illegal entrants into the school campus, and forestall gang warfare by preventing gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school (The Public School’s Parent Network)) for the purpose of intimidating other students or concealing contraband (Schooluniform-not.org). Critics argue that the proponents’ claim is overstressed, and in fact there has been NO improvement in the areas mentioned by them (The Public School’s Parent Network). On the issue of gang clothing, critics point out that some individuals are easily prone to intimidation, and can feel threatened by another student irrespective of what type of clothing the latter wears (Schooluniform-not.org). It is their psychological set up that is suspect; for example, a student can be intimidated by another student employing threatening gestures or facial expressions while wearing the proper school uniform. b) What schools are doing: Public schools are increasingly looking to school dress codes and uniform policies, in an effort to enhance the reputation of the school as a safe center of learning and development in the life of students. Proponents claim it is the only way to counter the wave of violence and misbehavior. Critics claim public schools are identifying the school environment with the immediate outer (district) and larger (State) areas. They say the deterioration trend (violence and misbehavior) within the school is not the result of an absence of dress code or uniforms, but reflects deterioration in the general law and order problem in the city and State wherein the school is located. For example, New Orleans {Louisiana} has thought it fit to implement uniforms in 95% of its schools, as compared to just 30% San Francisco {California}(Education Commission of the States). This is because the level of violent crimes (rapes, robberies, assaults, thefts, sexual assaults, household burglaries, motor vehicle thefts) is more in Louisiana as compared to California. A percentage-wise (total violent crimes vs. population) comparison is provided with figures from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics (Bureau of Justice Statistics): State Year State Population Total violent crimes Violent crimes % Louisiana 1996 4,351,000 40,426 0.929 California 1996 31,878,000 274,996 0.863 Louisiana 2000 4,468,976 30,440 0.681 California 2000 33,871,648 210,531 0.622 Louisiana 2005 4,523,628 26,889 0.594 California 2005 36,132,147 190,178 0.526 The above figures show that the violent crimes rate is much more in Louisiana (and New Orleans) as compared to California (and San Francisco), due to which there is a higher percentage of schools in New Orleans reacting to the overall crime picture (as compared to San Francisco) by implementing the uniforms policy. Critics further claim that there is actually a distinct reduction in violent crime levels (as is exemplified by both the States’ statistics between 1996 and 2005) so by association, the claim to increase supposed protection against general crime is negated. c) Components of safe schools: Proponents claim that by implementing dress codes and uniforms, schools propagate a sense of unity and identity in a safe environment. Critics argue against this on two fronts. In the first instance, the following figures of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics) are analyzed (Bureau of Justice Statistics): State Year State Population Total violent crimes Violent crimes % Illinois 1960 10,081,158 36,802 0.365 Florida 1960 4,951,560 11,061 0.223 Illinois 1970 11,113,976 52,006 0.467 Florida 1970 6,789,443 33,824 0.498 Illinois 2005 12,763,371 70,392 0.552 Florida 2005 17,789,864 125,957 0.708 Experts point out that during the turbulent 1960s and 1970s when crimes were said to be at very high levels, there were no public school dress codes or uniforms. When these periods are compared to the more sedate 2005, one sees that the crime rate has actually increased! By inference, crime rate was lower when there were no dress codes/uniforms in place, while it was higher in 2005 with dress codes/uniforms in place (Chicago {Illinois} has 80% public school uniform implementation, while Miami {Florida} has 60%). By further association, the school environment is proved to be a safer place with no dress codes/uniforms than with such a policy in place. On the second front, critics argue that wearing identical clothing does not foster feelings of unity or identity. For example, sports team members wear identical clothing not to promote unity, but to easily identify other team members (as opposed to the team competing against them), and thereby reduce chances of errors during the game; to verify the significance of uniforms in such a situation, the event would be reduced to a comedy, spirit and unity would fly out of the window and be replaced by dissatisfaction and discontentment (Schooluniform-not.org). IV) Academic: a) Is there improvement? Proponents argue that uniforms help students concentrate on academics, claiming that they concentrate so much on their wardrobe selection that it draws their attention away from learning. Critics point out that the number of students in public schools wearing name brand clothing or expensive shoes is very minimal simply because their parents cannot afford such luxuries {therefore there arises no question of students being engrossed in their wardrobe selection}(Schooluniform-not.org). They contend that the proponents’ argument could well apply to private school students whose families come from the richer sector of society who can comfortably afford such luxuries for their children. b) Is there a negative effect? While proponents disclaim any negative effect, opponents argue that uniforms and dress codes do not cater to an individual’s comfort, as different types of people feel comfortable in different types of clothing. Dress codes and uniforms tend to restrict a student’s degree of competence to select such clothing that is suitable and comfortable; children need to feel comfortable in order to put in their best and totally concentrated efforts into learning; therefore, dress codes and uniforms retard academic success (Education Commission of the States). c) Students rebel against uniforms consequently affecting academics: Proponents proclaim dress codes and uniforms promote teaching students to respect authority (and not rebel against it), will retaining their concentration on learning. Critics say students, representing young people in general, are increasingly expressing their attitudes, in large part, by the clothes they wear. Considering the large number of hours they spend daily in school, a dress code or uniform policy stifles their desire to express their attitudes. Such suppression will lead them to seek other ways to express their attitudes which could be detrimental to society. In this context, the imposition of dress codes or uniforms is seen as not only definitely affecting academics, but a ‘warning sign’ of problems to come (Schooluniform-not.org). Critics further add just two words to the question of respecting authority as argued by proponents: “Which authority?” They explain that if school district authorities are promoting and enforcing something not allowed by the State government, or is against the Constitution, it is incumbent upon students, as dutiful citizens, to challenge such policies (Schooluniform-not.org). V) Social effect: a) Freedom of expression: Proponents praise the dress code or uniform policy as contributing significantly to the promotion of students’ self-expression. Education and sociology specialists are of the opinion that such policies stifle the self- expression of students. Self-expression is essential during the developmental stages of a child, and if freedom to it is denied, then it would have an adverse affect on students, leading them to search for and indulge in less favorable methods such as over use of makeup, acquiring tattoos, using hand signals, or inviting danger by flaunting expensive jewelry. Critics end this argument with a tongue-in-cheek phrase: “Didn’t teachers promote this before uniforms?” (The Public School’s Parent Network). b) Targets for bullies from other schools: Proponents argue that dress codes or uniforms tend to equalize all students while contributing to their individualism. Critics say that, instead of encouraging students to whole-heartedly accept and rejoice in diversity, the policy only adds to the efforts of public education officials to denude students of their individuality. Socialization is an inherent part of human nature, and by being forced to try and control socialization, the public school system, aided by the dress code or uniforms policy, are not acting in the best interest of students. Critics add that such policies do not make students able and ready to face the ‘real world’(The Public School’s Parent Network). Critics argue from another view point, saying it is like telling students that if someone does not have an identical uniform, he or she is different (not as good) as them, and his or her company should therefore be avoided. Critics question what such students will think, when they emerge from school into the ‘real world’ and find that everyone dresses differently from them? (Schooluniform-not.org). One consequence of such an attitude is that their “superiority complex” will be attract bitter opposition and threats from others (especially students from other schools that do not have a dress code or uniform policy), and as is usual in such cases, the bullies of such schools will take the lead in instigating opposition activities. From another viewpoint, grudges against certain students can spill over to encompass others too, as the aggressors will view all wearing the same uniform with equal animosity. c) Financial burden on low income families: Proponents state that the expenditure of a student’s family on clothes for him or her will be lesser with the dress code or uniforms in place, as it essentially requires just two pairs (the minimum) of clothing to suffice for a school term. Critics say the cost of school uniforms increases family expenditure on children’s clothing, because in addition to the uniforms, they still have to buy them clothes for use when not attending school. The cost poses a negative factor as the expensive uniforms are not used outside the school environment. In addition, many less fortunate families depend on clothing donated by others, or buy from second-hand outlets: in their case, uniforms are very expensive necessities (The Public School’s Parent Network). d) Modesty: Proponents say dress codes and uniforms conform to generally accepted norms of modesty and decency. Critics counter that students not required to follow a dress code or uniform would not, for example, wear speedos (boys) or bikinis (girls) to school! Modesty is an inherent good quality in humans. Moreover, it is possible to don any type of clothes in an immodest way (Schooluniforms-not.org). e) Chances of ridicule: Proponents argue that the chances of harassment of students who are less fortunate or not well-liked are greatly reduced. Critics disagree, saying the very fact that schools adopting the dress code or uniform policy have not reported ANY improvement in this area, is proof enough that this argument does not hold water (The Public School’s Parent Network). VI) Litigation: a) Parental and student rights: While proponents deny that dress codes or uniform policies contravene parental and student rights, critics point to the landmark Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503 {1969}) case as a prime example of how dress codes are considered an infringement on the right of a student’s freedom of expression. The case revolved around a group of students led by Mary Beth Tinker, who wore black armbands (to protest against the Vietnam War) to school. The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the school district’s ban and the lower court decisions, ruling that the students had a protected right to wear the armbands. Critics say this infers individuals can wear clothing to express ideas and opinions (Pedzich) and as such, negates the dress code rule that requires a student either not to wear a particular item. b) Opt-out provisions: Referring to the uniforms policy, proponents praise its fairness by allowing students to the ‘opt out’ option, not needing to abide by these regulations, provided their parents consent to such a concession. They add that most school districts have implemented such ‘opt out’ provisions. Critics argue that this ‘fair’ option exists mostly in principle, whereas in actuality it is not easily adopted by school districts that have the uniform policy in place; this is because such an option is perceived by them as likely to be a disruptive influence within the school environment. For example, the Arizona State Trial Court recently ruled in favor of a Phoenix school that has rules needing students to wear uniforms with no ‘opt out’ provision – the only way to avoid it was to join another public school (U.S. Department of Education). c) Constitutional rights: Using the Tinker case (in its position as a landmark case on this subject) again to deny proponents’ claim that the dress code or uniform policy does not infringe students’ constitutional rights, critics cite a specific phrase in the wording of the judgment: the Supreme Court stressed that its ruling was “view-point specific.” Critics say the ruling set up the rule that while keeping order and encouragement of adequate norms of classroom behavior have similar weight and meaning for ensuring a satisfactory education system, school officials do not have the freedom to deprive students of their constitutional rights (Education Commission of the States). VII) Conclusion: In my opinion, the dress code/uniform policy should be withdrawn at once. There is a vast difference between the period in which this regulation officially came about (1996 – President Clinton) and today when the emphasis on freedom of expression, individuality and constitutional rights is much higher than ever before. Perhaps the best feature of the regulations (the ‘opt out’ provision), has also proved to be impractical. The one way out is to remove these restricting regulations. Perhaps the best way forward is contained in the recent statement of John Brucato, principal of Milford High School (Mass.) during an interview to CNN: “We should ask our students to dress and groom themselves as individuals with a sense of responsibility and self-respect” (Anderson). The need of the hour is to remove these regulations and replace them with such a simple appeal to students’ responsible judgment; after all, it is these students who will be the leaders of tomorrow, and if they are not allowed to act like responsible citizens caring for the welfare of our country, who should we then groom to take the U.S.A to higher heights in its role as the world’s leading country? References: “A modest list of debating points about Mandatory Public School Uniforms.” Schooluniforms-not.org. 2001. Anderson, Wendell. “School Dress Codes & Uniform Policies.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. N.d. “Dress Codes: The Pros & Cons of Mandatory School Uniforms in Public Schools.” The Public School’s Parent Network. 2003. 14 Feb. 2007. Madrid, Max J. & Garcia, Elizabeth A. “Student Dress Codes: Constitutional Requirements & Policy Suggestions.” Modrall Sperling. 1999. “Manual on School Uniforms.” U.S. Department of Education. 1996. Pedzich, Joan. “Student Dress Codes in Public Schools.” Aallnet.org. 2002. “State & national level crime trend estimates”. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2006. “Uniforms/Dress Codes.” Education Commission of the States. 2007. Read More