Jamie Mendez
Ms. Cowart
ENGL 1301
7 November 2015
The Social and Economical Concern of Mandating School Uniforms
Uniforms have played a major role in social and school reform for several years. Educators and parents in favor of uniforms in the classroom claim that competition would be decreased and outside distractions would be reduced. The ultimate goal is to redirect focus back to what is most important; educational achievement. While this goal is important, uniforms hinder students’ freedom of expression to promote safety and security in a school system at the cost of conformity to whatever is socially acceptable. Is mandating uniforms the best route to take to accomplish the overall goal? School uniforms suppress individuality, increase costs for families, and are not an effective means of mitigating safety.
Individual rights should be protected to promote growth and character within the individual. Uniforms subject all students to the same solutions, instead of addressing character problems separately. Clothing promotes expression by giving the individual access to choice and creativity. This in turn promotes self-awareness and show a sense of pride in the personality the student has developed thus far. “School uniforms suppress students’ individuality by mandating standardization of appearance and removing student expression” (Brunsma and Rockquemore 54). School regulations can affect the overall growth of a child. Too many regulations can hinder the development of a child’s personality, beliefs, and decisions. “Some believe that students should base life choices on their own internal values, rather than on rules and regulations arbitrarily set for them, and that this is vitally important to their future health and discipline” (King 34). Uniforms lack the ability to express culture and religion inherent to the individual. In order for a uniform to allow for religious and cultural differences, a dress code would also have to be enforced stating guidelines for appropriate wear of cultural and religious accessories. This however defeats the purpose of uniforms by allowing division within a social control and negating consistency.
Establishing uniforms can be proved costly both in the initial implication and the maintenance of uniforms overtime. One parent has stated “I think these uniforms have been another way to take in revenue for the school. It has definitely been a financial burden ... Kids still have to wear clothes outside of school, so this just adds to the expense” (Firmin, Michael, and Perry 163). Without the added cost of uniforms, clothing that is purchased for non-school wear can be worn in school as well, given a proper dress code. Furthermore, the additional cost that comes with uniforms can limit low income or single parent income families on the choices of school districts. The costs of school uniforms can be put to better use, enhancing educational opportunities and a more productive environment. “The ACLU stresses that, instead of being directed toward uniforms, resources should be directed toward creating more attractive, clean, and safe school buildings; smaller classes; well stocked libraries; easily accessed computers; more elective courses, such as music, drama, and art” (King 34).
Safety and education have always been a primary concern of both faculty and parents. “Youths who feel safe, secure, and free from threats of violence perform better academically” (King 32). While uniforms may initially affect the overall safety of a facility, it does not, however, directly influence the decisions made by the individual wearing the uniform. The decision making process of a student is a direct reflection of the upbringing, provided to the individual, that is necessary for character building. “The ACLU has also labeled mandatory school uniform policy as not constructive, since such a policy only serves as a ‘band-aid’ to a set of serious problems that require multifaceted, multidisciplinary actions” (King 34). The clothing choices of students are only a visual symptom of a person’s character, and not the overall issue to be resolved within the character and choices of an individual. More productive plans to promote longevity of safety within a school could be implemented instead of a uniformed dress code. Rather than being reactive to a problem with uniforms, educators and parents can take a proactive approach by instituting programs designed to instill proper values and good habits within a student. “Suggestions did include schools seriously confronting and discussing issues of racial and cultural conflict; providing ‘safe corridor’ programs, which protect student safety to and from school; securing their entrances; providing them more extracurricular activities and clubs…” (King 34).
The decision to implement uniforms has been brought about to decrease competition and limit outside distractions within schools, which is a common focus for school districts and faculty. Competition in the classroom based on the clothing of a student, and the peer pressure it imposes on an individual, is an ever-growing problem for students. Implementing a uniformed dress code resolves this issue by removing the high-dollar equals high-class stigma that comes with picking out clothing for a school year. One superintendent shared the opinion “One of the things that uniform dress accomplishes is that you’re pretty much the same as far as the type of clothing you wear and you get rid of this perception that because you have a certain type of blouse or a certain pair of trousers that you have more money or greater status” (Firmin, Smith, and Perry 156). Uniforms replace brand names with equality for each individual and encourage educational achievement instead of social achievement.
While the style of clothing an individual wears may encourage competition between students, certain clothing can bring about a number of distractions within a classroom. The primary focus of an educational system is to teach students and to challenge them to learn new things and the process of learning can prove to be hard enough without the distraction of a low cut blouse, a tight-fitting shirt, or a pair of shorts that are too short. “The clothing does not distract because everyone wears and basically looks the same so the clothing does not distract if the girls’ shirts are modest … I think it does have an impact. There are no distractions in the classrooms pertaining to clothing” (Firmin, Smith, and Perry 158-159). Imposing a uniform dress code can reduce the distraction within the classroom by removing inappropriate clothing from the environment and creating an atmosphere of academic achievement. A former board member reiterates the point when saying; “the hope would be that students would become more focused on their academics rather than what pair of jeans their buddy has on” (Firmin, Smith, and Perry 154).
Uniforms severely limit individuality, promote unnecessary expenses for student clothing, and provide no additional safety measures over non-uniform wear. Other methods can be implemented to enhance education and safety while preserving students’ rights, parental costs, and security in the classroom. Uniforms only succeed in concealing and distorting the perspective of current situations in society. Removing competition by enforcing uniforms does not change the overall character of each individual. The focus is only redirected to the persons’ character and not the clothing they wear. Uniforms are only one of the alleviating factors of distraction. Creating guidelines within a proper dress code while allowing the student freedom of expression through appropriate attire leads to a compromise between individual freedoms and the overall objectives of higher learning. The problems within school systems around the world have persisted for many years and while uniforms may appear to be an immediate fix, clothing reform is merely a temporary solution to an ever-prevalent problem.