FREE ESSAY ON IMPLEMENTING UNIFORMS?

IMPLEMENTING UNIFORMS?

Implementing Uniforms?
The argument whether uniforms should be implemented in school has been debated over
the last few decades. By implementing a uniform policy within schools would help reduce
the
rise of violent crimes. In today's high schools, too many innocent youths become
fatalities due
to gang warfare that has spread into the school system. Many parents feel that if a
uniform
policy was implemented , the spread of gang warfare and the idea that children have to
have
name brand clothing would decrease drastically. However others are worried that this
policy
would infringe on students First Amendment Rights with expressing themselves. Many
parents
are worried that the uniforms will cost too much and they will only burden their economic
status. 
Uniforms will either give the school strength or separate the students and parents from
the
administration.
Proponents of uniforms argue that the widespread violence in schools is due largely to
gangs. They believe that the distinctive gang colors and symbols are used it intimidate
non-gang
members and reinforce gang allegiance. Gang members are often found wearing clothing
with
professional sports team logos on them. Children who wear this type of clothing do so
only
because they like it or because everyone else is wearing it. Jim Steinberg of the San
Diego
Examiner believes that, "They have become a fashion statement and sometimes a gang
statement"(Sauewein 1). This is why so many parents want the schools to go to a
mandatory
uniform policy. Many parents believe that if children wear uniforms, the violence in
schools
would drop significantly. Long Beach Unified School District was the first large school
district
in the United States to implement a mandatory uniform policy. "In 1994, the Long Beach
Unified School District in California became the nation's first, large urban district to
require all
it's elementary and middle school students to wear uniforms. School crime has plunged 76
percent since, says spokesman Dick Van Der Laan. Attendance is the highest it's been
since
1980. Can the uniform policy take this credit? "Very definitely," Van Der Laan says. 
"Uniforms sets a message of 'You are in the business of learning" (Merchant 3). "In the
first
year following implication, overall school crime decreased by 36%, sex offenses by 74%,
physical flight to point students by 51%, weapon offenses by 50%, assault and battery by
34%,
school suspensions by 32%, and vandalism by 18%" (Merchant 2). According to statistics,
the
majority of the population supports implementing school uniforms. 
Parents all over the United States fear that their children might be attacked
inadvertently
for wearing the wrong color scarf or hat that might provoke rivalry among local gangs.
Many
parents of children victims of gang warfare would like to see uniforms instituted in all
schools. 
According to Dale Stover, "In gang-ravaged Los Angeles, as well as other communities
with
gang activity, a dress code also helps maintain peace among rival groups by prohibiting
the
wearing of clothing associated with local gangs" (Sauerwein 1). 
Opponents of the policy believe that other factors have to do with the lowering of crime
within the school system. Dennis Evans believes that "Where gang members are concerned,
the
wearing of school uniforms will be cosmetic at best and will not change the gang
mentality or
reduce the potential of antisocial gang related behavior, either on campus or off.
Ironically,
mandating the wearing of school uniforms might even make it easier to be a gang member
and
school administrators could no longer readily recognize the trapping of the gangs"
(Hirsch 54). 
Once a child becomes a gang member, they always will be no matter what they are wearing.

Other children will know who the gang members are just by word of mouth. Whether a child
is
forced to conceal their identity, or not, the problem of gangs will always persist in
schools. With
this in mind, whom do we believe? 
When children become of age and have to go to school, they learn very quickly that in
order to fit in, you have to wear what all the other students are wearing. These
clothing
accessories too often cost well over a person's weekly salary. "All of the pressure could
be
eliminated if everybody dressed alike" (Goldberg 23). When kids are young, they enjoy
dressing
like their best friends. There are many times when children wish they could dress just
like the
other kids whose families were a little more wealthier. By implementing the policy in all
16,000
districts throughout the United States, the school uniforms will level the playing field
in
classrooms by removing the messages of social and economic status in clothes. Uniforms
tailored to individual schools may enhance the schools sense of community as well as the
students self-esteem. Uniforms chosen by the school can provide students with a school
identity. 
It can straighten school spirit and pride. This is achieved much the same way as an
athletic team
uniform builds team unity. The joining together by all students will also raise the
morale and
self-esteem of students. Students that are together in one mind lead to a school that is
united. 
There would no longer be the economic barrier that separates one child from another.
Children
will no longer pick on the misfits that are different from them. 
Many families fear the mandatory policy of uniforms and school infringes on the students
First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. Parents are afraid that children will not be
able to
create their own identity and explore who they are. Two recent court cases that involved
the
First Amendment may help decide that it's a very important issue. In the Landmark case,
Tinker
vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court
empathetically asserted that school students do not "shed their constitutional rights to
freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" ( Lieberman 55 ). In 1988, the Supreme
Court
expanded on the special nature of First Amendment law surrounding the public elementary
and
secondary schools. In Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, the high court found that
public schools generally are not open public forums in the same sense as streets or parks
and that
school officials may therefore impose reasonable restrictions on free speech. This ruling
was
consistent with earlier Supreme Court decisions that the school's unique role in
promoting
respect for authority and traditional values and in preparing individuals for
participation
assistance justifies greater latitude in regulating speech on school property (Leiberman
56). 
However many times when this issue goes to court, groups such as the ACLU will try to
persuade us why this violates our First Amendment rights. Lauren Seigal, who is director
of the
ACLU Public Education Department, has stated "no one knows for certain whether the
school
uniforms are actually beneficial (Merchant 2). Developing a mandatory uniform policy does
not
infringe on the student's First Amendment rights. The fact they have to take into
consideration
is that these children are still minors. School districts are only implementing these
policies in
order to protect them from the dangers that come with living in the modern world.
Michael
Kennedy points out that "Teachers emphasize how children respond much better in the
classroom when they are all dressed the same" (Hirsch 19). "They give students an esprit
and
help improve morale. Children can concentrate more on their studies than on what
fashionable,
at least during school hours (Sauerwein 4). A dress code will enforce discipline towards
learning because they will have fewer distractions and students will see the school as a
workplace for teaching and learning. So how can these policies take away students rights
when
it is proven that they are able to concentrate on their work and not on who is wearing
the latest
fad and who is not? 
Families from the lower income brackets fear that the uniforms are too expensive. They
point out that not only do they have to buy the uniforms, but they also have to supply
their
children with clothes for when they are not in school. In 1995, the ACLU helped a group
of
parents file a lawsuit against the Long Beach and Oakland school districts. According to
the
lawsuits, the school districts did not follow the state law that require districts to
give parents the
option of allowing their children to wear uniforms. This lawsuit was settled out of court
the
following year. However, the school districts agreed that they would expand their
financial aid
for families that could not afford the uniforms. The factor that they did not take into
consideration is that the uniforms generally cost much less than buying name brand
department
store clothing. The school districts argue that it is much cheaper for a family to buy
their
children a week's worth of uniforms instead of name brand clothing. They point to the
relatively
low cost of uniforms. A typical uniform might cost between $25 and $35. In many school
districts, there are nonprofit organizations that give out over $100,000 in financial aid
to families
that allow them to buy these uniforms. School districts also point out that the uniforms
can be
passed down from one child to another. By doing this, they would come out ahead in the
long
run.
Many parents believe that uniforms will only stifle the students creativity. They will
not
be allowed to freely express themselves with the colors that they wear as well as the
clothing
itself. If a child is feeling particularly happy that day, he or she may want to wear
their favorite
outfit to express themselves and the way that they feel. If all students wear uniforms,
the entire
school will all look exactly the same, which takes away all creativity and suppresses
individuality. 
The controversy whether to implement the uniform policy has gone on for quite a few
years now. Both sides of the argument give compelling reasons why or why not the policy
should be arrayed. But with the rise in the violent crimes in the school systems,
children need to
be protected, or else our children may be growing up knowing only violence. They will
not
know what it will be like to live a life without fear.