Running head: SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 1

Examining School Uniform Policies Across the United States

Alaa Abd-El-Hafez
Long Island University
Professor Hogan
EDD1001
Summer 2013





















SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 2
Abstract
The vast majority of court cases support a school boards right to require school uniforms.
Although uniform policies are flourishing across the United States, there is little research on the
effectiveness of school uniforms. The debate over the implementation of school uniform policies
is ongoing. Mandatory uniform policies elicited strong reactions from parents, students,
educators on both sides of the issue. First, the paper examined the legality of implementing a
uniform policy. An examination of the uniform policy of Long Beach Unified School District of
California and the impact that the policy have had then followed. The advantages and
disadvantages of adopting a mandatory uniform policy in U.S. schools were then explored.
Keywords: School uniforms, Long Beach Unified School District, Policy



















SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 3
Examining School Uniform Policies Across the United States
In the late 1980s, mandatory school uniform policies began to be initiated across the U.S
(Han, 2010). The movement began when inner-city schools in Baltimore, Maryland, and
Washington, D.C. adopted a uniform policy with some successful results. The Long Beach
Unified School District in California was the first large urban school district in the United
States to implement school uniforms for grades k-8 (Lopez, 401). The results following this
mandated uniform policy were remarkable and caught the attention of President Bill Clinton
(Firmin, Perry, & Smith, 2006). In his 1996 State of the Union Address, he advocated for
uniform policies in schools. The former president claimed that a school uniform policy was one
solution to gang-related behavioral problems in large metropolitan areas (Brunsma &
Rockquemore, 2003).
Shortly after the 1996 State of the Union Address, school uniform policies were adopted
in 70 schools for about 60,000 students (Firmin, Perry, & Smith, 2006). The Bush administration
also encouraged schools to implement uniform policies (Han, 2010). Compared to 3% of public
schools requiring uniforms in 1996, more than 14% of public schools required uniforms in 2005.
The number of large school districts adopting uniform policies is increasing (Gentile &
Imberman, 2011). Today, few empirical studies have examined the impact of a mandatory school
uniform policy. The debate on the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory school uniform
policies is ongoing.
The legalities and Constitutionality of Mandating a School Uniform Policy
Although public schools in the United States do not have a long history with school
uniforms, schools did enforce dress codes for decades. In the 1950s and 1960s, public schools
required particular lengths for dresses and skirts, forbade leather jackets, motorcycle boots, etc.
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 4
In the 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, students constitutional
right for self-expression was established (Firmin, Perry, & Smith, 2006). Although schools
cannot restrict all speech, they can restrict the form of its expression in the choice of clothing
(Vopat, 2010). In the Bethel Schools v Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court decided that schools
had the responsibility to teach the habits and manners of civility. Schools had the right to punish
students for violating such habits or manners. In 1998, Schools right to implement a school
uniform policy was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court in Canady v Bossier Schools. However,
school boards may not adopt a policy of which the intent is to prevent student expression
(Firmin, Perry, & Smith, 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has held that states have the power to control the
conduct of students. Schools may limit speech that could not otherwise be limited outside the
school. While students may have some constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression
in public schools, the Supreme Court has held that these rights are limited. Content-neutral
regulations are those that prohibit speech to avoid negative behavior unconnected to the content
of the speech (Knechtle & Mitchell, 2003, p.490). School uniform statutes fall into the category
of content-neutral regulation. In the United States v. OBrien (1968), the Supreme Court has
established the OBrien Test (Knechtle & Mitchell, 2003). It is used to determine whether a
content-neutral governmental invasion of the right to free expression violates the First
Amendment (Knechtle & Mitchell, 2003, p. 490).
According to the OBrien Test, a regulation will be justified if:
a) It is within the governments interest
b) It furthers an important or substantial government interest
c) The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 5
d) The incidental restriction on First Amendment rights is no greater than necessary to
further that interest. (Knechtle & Mitchell, 2003, p. 490)
Courts have decided that content-neutral regulations that satisfy the OBrien Test are
constitutional. Therefore, uniform policies that satisfy the OBrien Test are constitutional.
Besides using the OBrien Test, the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989) decided to use
the context in which the speech occur to determine whether a content-neutral government
regulation violates the First Amendment (Knechtle & Mitchell, 2003).
The Fifth Circuit Court in the case of Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District
provided one of the clearest and most direct arguments for the constitutionality of school
uniforms. The court applied the OBrian test to determine whether uniforms violated freedom of
expression, or whether such a violation could be justified. The Uniform Policy of the Forney
Independent School District had met the OBrian test on each of the four points. Therefore, the
school board had the right by state law to require uniforms. Also, since the interests of the
uniforms were not intended to restrict students freedom of expression, the policy did not violate
the rulings of Tinker v. Des Moines School District. In addition, the restriction on speech was
limited to dress and did not extend to other forms of expression (Vopat, 2010).
In 1996, the U.S. department of Education gave the following recommended steps for the
successful implementation of a new school uniform policy:
1. Get Parents involved from the beginning.
2. Protect students religious expression.
3. Protect students other rights of expression.
4. Determine whether to have a voluntary or mandatory school-uniform policy.
5. When a mandatory policy is adopted, determine whether to have an opt-out provision.
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 6
6. Do not require students to wear a message.
7. Assist families that need financial help.
8. Treat school uniforms as part of an overall safety program. (Firmin, Perry, & Smith,
2006, p. 147)
Most school uniform policies in the United States are implemented at the elementary and middle
school levels (Firmin, Perry, & Smith, 2006).
The First Most Extensive Mandatory School Uniform Policy
The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) has 60 elementary schools, 23 middle
schools, and 13 high schools with over 97,000 students. It is the third largest school district in
California. The student body is incredibly diverse with 46 different languages spoken by local
students. In an attempt to integrate immigrant populations and a wide range of socioeconomic
groups, the district turned to parents, families, and community members for their support in
piloting a school uniform policy at one elementary school. By 1993-94, the school district has
gained enough support to establish a uniform policy in 10 additional elementary and middle
schools. An early evaluation of the policy yielded positive results with reduction in ethnic and
racial tensions, improvements in attendance and school safety (Lopez, 2003).
With a largely supportive community, the LBUSD launched a mandatory uniform policy
and program for all students grades K-8. The schools were required along with their community
to determine the appropriate uniform and create programs for financial assistance. Information
was then sent out to all parents and schools. Students could be exempt from wearing the uniform
if they meet one of three circumstances. Only 2% of enrolled students had requested exemption.
The district had received bipartisan legislative support for this initiative in Senate Bill 1269
(Lopez, 2013).
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 7
An evaluation of the school uniform policy five years later found that crime in school has
dropped approximately 86%. Sex offenses were down by 93%, robbery/extortion were down
85%, selling or using chemical substances were down 48%, and weapons were down 75%.
Attendance in Middle schools reached 95%. A survey of parents showed that 91% believed
school uniforms improved the school environment (Lopez, 2013).
The Advantages of Adopting a School Uniform Policy
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Education released a manual based on the successful
Long Beach school uniform initiative promoting the advantages of adopting school uniforms.
The manual mentioned the following benefits of implementing a school uniform policy:
a) Decreasing violence or theft among students over designer-expensive clothing.
b) Helping to prevent gang members from wearing gang colors or insignia at school.
c) Helping students to better concentrate on their school work.
d) Helping school officials to recognize intruders who come to the school. (College &
DaCosta, 2006).
Educators believe that school uniform policies improve student academic achievement,
student self-esteem, disciplinary practices, and the overall learning environment (Han, 2010, p.
1). Recent studies found that implementing a school uniform policy increased students sense of
belonging, developed students pride in their school and created a sound learning environment,
decreased violent incidents and gang problems, and reduced discipline outcomes, such as
suspension and referrals to juvenile authorities (Han, 2010, p. 3). A study mentioned in Firmin,
Perry, and Smith (2006) found that school uniforms enhanced the relationship between teachers
and students. Teachers expectations of students also improved as a result of the school uniform
policy.
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 8
Han (2010) examined the relationship between a mandatory school uniform policy and
students problem behaviors. The study analyzed data from 421 urban schools that served a
diverse student population. The samples were obtained from the School Survey on Crime and
Safety (SSOCS) 2003- 04 data. About 34% of these urban schools had a mandatory school
uniform policy, most of which were elementary and middle schools. The study found that
schools with no uniform policies had more frequent students problem behaviors than schools
with uniform policies. Schools with no uniform policies had a greater number of fire arm-related
incidents, drug-related incidents, alcohol-related incidents, and gang problems than schools with
uniform policies (Han, 2010).
Han (2010) concluded that there was a negative relationship between implementing
school uniform policy and students problem behaviors at the elementary and middle school
levels. Thus, school uniform policies should be considered to prevent or reduce students
problem behaviors at those school levels. The opposite relationship was found at the high school
level. High schools with uniform policies had more frequent students problem behaviors than
high schools without uniform policies. The study controlled for other school safety initiatives
and school characteristics (Han, 2010).
Gentile and Imberman (2011) examined the effect of school uniforms on student
achievement, attendance, and behavior. The study used administrative data from a large urban
school district in the Southwest United States. Each school in the district was free to adopt their
own uniform policy. The study found that uniforms had little impact on discipline and attendance
for elementary students. However, for middle and high school students, there were significant
improvements in attendance rates, particularly for females. Female attendance increased y 0.3
percent after uniform adoption. School uniforms had little impact on discipline for middle and
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 9
high school students. The study also found that school uniforms had little impact on
achievement, grade retention, or the likelihood of students switching schools or leaving the
district for all genders and grade levels (Gentile & Imberman, 2011, p. 16). In elementary
schools, uniforms significantly reduced teacher attrition. The authors of this study stated that
schools uniforms maybe a useful tool for reducing teacher turnover (Gentile & Imberman, 2011).
Hill, Sanchez, and Yoxsimer (2012) found that uniforms have had a positive impact on
improving school climate and decreasing disciplinary incidents. The participants in this study
were seventh- and eighth- grade middle school students from an urban public school in Nevada.
The 604 participants made up 86% of the schools population. The uniform policy was created
with the help of faculty, parents, and students. School police records and disciplinary data were
collected a year before and after the implementation of the uniform policy. The study found that
discipline referrals at the school were reduced by 9.7% and there was a 63% reduction in the
total police log reports. Other findings:
Gang-related reports decreased from 12 to 4; affray reports decreased from 20 to 8;
graffiti decreased from 26 to 2; property damage to school decreased from 10 to 1; threats
decreased from 18 to 4; battery decreased from 25 to 3, and administrative assists
decreased from 17 to 5. (Hill, Sanchez, & Yoxsimer, 2012, p. 353).
However, students believes were not consist with these results (Hill, Sanchez, & Yoxsimer,
2012).
Hill, Sanchez, and Yoxsimer (2012) gave the students a survey to complete at the end of
the year during which the school policy was implemented. About 87% of the students responded
that they disliked wearing the uniform. Most of the students agreed that were still behavior
problems at the school but there was less gang activity. Overall, the majority of the students
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 10
thought there were no benefits to wearing the uniform (at least to those benefits that were on the
survey). More female than male students thought that wearing a uniform made students treat
them better than before. More seventh- graders than eighth- graders indicated that the school and
they were safer because of wearing the uniforms. More Latino students than White students
reported feeling more confident at school because of wearing uniforms. They have also indicated
that uniforms made it easier for them to go to school (Hill, Sanchez, & Yoxsimer, 2012).
Catholic schools in America have a long history with school uniforms in the U.S. About
65% of U.S students mandated to wear uniforms go to Catholic schools. Firmin, Perry, & Smith,
(2006) was the first qualitative study attempting to understand Christian school uniform policies.
The study examined the extent at which the school uniform policies at two Christian schools
achieved their intended goals of eliminating competition and distractions in the classroom
setting. The two schools, one in the Midwest and the other in the Midsouth region of the United
States, were similar in size, function, and demographics. Both schools implemented a school
uniform policy two years before the study was conducted. Administrators, faculty, staff,
students, and parents were interviewed about their perceptions of how the uniform policy has
worked, or not worked in their school (Firmin, Smith, and Perry, 2006).
The school uniform policies at the two schools were established to eliminate competition,
to have students dress appropriately, to decrease distraction from the learning environment, and
to lower the costs of clothing during school hours. School personnel and parents at the two
Christian schools believed that the intended goals were met. Students agreed with school
personnel and parents that uniforms have accomplished the goal of dressing appropriately but for
different reasons. Students however did not believe that uniforms eliminated competition or
decreased distractions. Students did not claim that uniforms made matter worse but that there
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 11
was no change. Parents and school staff have disagreed on whether the uniforms have lowered
costs. At the Midwest school, parents believed that uniforms enhanced the spiritual reputation of
the school to the nonreligious community. They further believed that uniforms promoted safety,
outsiders stood out (Firmin, Smith, and Perry, 2006).
The Disadvantages of Adopting a School Uniform Policy
Gentile and Imberman (2011) stated that research on school uniforms suffer from
substantial bias because schools are most likely to adopt uniforms in response to disciplinary
problems or low achievement. Uniform policies are often adopted with other school reform
efforts making it difficult to determine the extent of the effectiveness of uniform policies in
achieving their desired goal. Pilot programs used as the references for uniform policy successes
were in elementary or middle schools. However, these pilot programs are being used as
references for adopting uniform policies in high schools across the United States (College &
DaCosta, 2006).
In contrast to the above findings, studies found that mandatory school uniform policies
have no effect on raising attendance rates, decreasing gang presence, or creating a positive
school climate. Opponents of mandatory school uniform policies argue that they violate students
freedom of speech and expression preserved by the First Amendment (Han, 2010). They create
an authoritarian atmosphere and system that are not desirable for educating students (Han,
2010, p. 1). School uniforms may cause students to lose their sense of identification with the
school (College & DaCosta, 2006). Opponents also argue that uniform policies do not improve
student academic achievement, student self-esteem, disciplinary practices, and the overall
learning environment (Han, 2010). School uniforms prohibit normal identity exploration and
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 12
development and represent intrusive control of group behavior (College and DaCosta, 2006).
The cost of the school uniform may cause financial difficulties for poor families (Han, 2010).
College and DaCosta (2006) stated that teenagers often turn to appearance and clothing
choices as tools for finding autonomy and responsibility. Therefore, it is understandable that a
mandated school uniform policy will be met with resistance. This is precisely what this
qualitative study found. College and DaCosta (2006) explored the responses of 22 U.S. urban
public high school students in relation to the newly implemented school uniform policy. Nine
semi-structured interviews were conducted over a two-year period with students from the end of
eighth grade to the end of tenth grade. The study found that 75% of the students were opposed to
the uniform policy. Of those students, 56% opposed the restriction of freedom, 25% opposed the
expense of the uniform, and 19% opposed the uselessness of the policy. Students developed
strategies to undermine the policy and to retain some form of freedom. They defied the school
uniform policy verbally and/or behaviorally (College and DaCost, 2006).
The consequences for not wearing the uniform, a certain style of shirt and pants in a
specified color, at Brookside High School were in-school suspension or an alternative uniform
which was unattractive, generic, and loose fitting. Hairstyles were included in the schools dress
codes. Boys were not allowed to wear their hair in braids. In rebelling against the uniform policy,
students have ignored the official uniform and adopted the alternative uniform as the norm. To
some students, the alternative uniform was at least loose enough to allow them to wear their
street cloth underneath. Students have expressed that they felt suffocated by the policy. The
uniform had become a symbol of constraint in the minds of the students (College and DaCosta,
2006).
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 13
College and DaCosta (2006) stated that the official uniform interfered with a
developmentally normal rite of passage for these adolescents (p. 54). Students felt that the
policy shattered their imagined high school experience of independence and freedom of choice.
Students, specifically male students, believed that they were unfairly targeted and labeled as
troublemakers with general hostility being the norm (College & DaCosta, 2006). Male
students view the policy as discriminating. Girls are given more freedom when it comes to the
uniform. One male student stated that some girls do not wear the uniform and nothing is said to
them. However, when a boy doesnt wear the uniform he sent to in-school suspension. Students
have explained for themselves this differential treatment as a function of teacher/staff bias. The
policy has added to students distrust of the administration and its intentions (College &
DaCosta, 2006).
Some students have tried to personalize their alternative uniforms by writing on it or
airbrushing the back. Others have tried to push the limit of the rules by substituting one or two
pieces of their uniform. Students have also blatantly defied the school uniform by showing up to
school without it. These coping strategies have contributed to a norm of non-compliance and fed
into a cycle of punishment and protest (College & DaCosta, 2006).
Vopat (2010) argued in his article that adopting a mandatory school uniform policy does
not violate childrens (ages 5-11) freedom of expression since such right cannot properly be
applied to children within this age group. Restricting this freedom is not morally problematic.
Vopat (2010) stated that younger children are not capable of the type of expression that may
warrant respect or protection (p. 207). Children are not capable of substantive expression. That
is, they are not capable of engaging in the type of expression that is both intentional and
symbolic. Rather, they engage in mere expression which is non-cognitive (Vopat, 2010).
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 14
Children also rarely choose or have the means to purchase their own clothing. Thus, it is
not apparent how they can express themselves through the choice of clothing. Even if children
had the option of choosing their own clothing, they do not have the capacity to choose clothing
that represents anything more than an act of mere expression (Vopat, 2010). Vopat (2010) stated
that although uniforms may not violate childrens rights, they may do a disservice to children in
other ways (p. 210).
Vopat (2010) believed that at some point children will have the capacity for using things
like clothing as a meaningful act of expression. The development of substantive expression
occurs over time. Developing this capability requires that children be granted some freedom of
expression. The imposition of mandatory uniforms may cause us to miss an opportunity to aid
children in their development of substantive expression (p. 213). In addition to this, Vopat
(2010) mentioned that the actual effectiveness of uniforms has proven at best indeterminate. The
article cites several studies that give the perception that uniforms had a positive impact on factors
such as attendance, discipline, and academic performance but the actual measured outcomes do
not support such an impact (Vopat, 2010).









SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 15
References

Brunsma, D. B., & Rockquemore, K. R. (2003). Statistics, sound bites, and school uniforms: A
reply to Bodine. Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), 72-77. doi: 10.2307/27548013
College, U. C., & DaCosta, K. D. (2006). Dress code blues: An exploration of urban students
reactions to a public high school uniform policy. Journal of Negro Education, 75(1), 49-
59. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20956745/dress-code-
blues-exploration-urban-students-reactions-public-high-school-uniform-policy
Firmin, M. F., Perry, L. P., & Smith, S. S. (2006). School uniforms: A qualitative analysis of
aims and accomplishments at two christian schools. Journal of Research on Christian
Education, 15(2), 143-168. doi: 10.1080/10656210609485000
Gentile, E. G., & Imberman, S. I. (2012). Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on
student achievement. Journal of Urban Economics, 71(1), 1-17. doi:
10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.002
Han, S. H. (2010). A mandatory uniform policy in urban schools: Findings from the school
survey on crime and safety. Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(8), 1-13.
Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/viewFile/253/96
Hill, G. H., Sanchez, J. S., & Yoxsimer, A. Y. (2012). Uniforms in the middle school: Student
opinions, discipline data, and school police data. Journal of School Violence, 11, 345-
356. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.706873
Knechtle, J. K., & Mitchell, H. M. (2003). Uniforms in public school and the First Amendment:
A constitutional analysis. Journal of Negro Education, 72(4), 497-494. Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/12941877/uniforms-public-schools-first-
amendment-constitutional-analysis
SCHOOL UNIFORM POLICIES 16
Lopez, R. L. (2003). The long beach unified school district uniform initiative: A pervention-
intervention strategy for urban schools. Journal of Negro Education, 72(4), 396-405. doi:
10.2307/3211191
Vopat, M. V. (2010). Mandatory school uniforms and freedom of expression. Ethics and
Education, 5(3), 203-215. doi: 10.1080/17449642.2010.519139