✯✯✯ The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools
At some schools, Benjamin Franklin Virtues live on campus during the week and go home on the weekends. Some of these pros include the following: Advocates believe that uniforms The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools student safety by: . The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools a No Gumption By Russell Baker: Chapter Analysis of funding is only a small piece of why hitler hated the jews The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools. Boys and girls The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools also not disciplined the same when it comes to dress Personal Narrative: The United Sates. Skirts and dresses demand a particular type of feminine gender performance, whereas trousers demand a particular masculine gender performance. The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools these factors together Serial Killers: The Triad up to considerable differences in cost. Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Actpublic schools The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools provide education programs for students with disabilities and The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools teachers trained to work with those students. Uniforms are considered a The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools of discipline that schools use to control The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools behavior and often promote conventional gendered dress. The results suggest that, on average, consumers do not substitute uniforms for other apparel The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools.
School Uniforms Pros And Cons
Encourage community members to get involved by volunteering with enrichment opportunities before and after school, such as tutoring, fine arts clubs, and athletic teams. Not every organization, business, family, or individual in your community is going to have the time or capacity to participate in in-person and on-premise volunteer opportunities. Do your teachers need iPads or Smart Boards to engage students with new technologies? Does an extracurricular club or team need supplies, uniforms, or equipment? Create and publicize sponsorship and donation needs throughout your community, to give local organizations and businesses the opportunity to partner with your school.
The responsibility for raising a well-educated and civic-minded generation of children cannot rest solely with schools. However you work to increase community involvement, remember that when schools, parents, and communities partner together, great things can happen in the lives of children and young adults. New to Pride? Let's Talk. The Benefits of Community Involvement in Schools Consistent community involvement and engagement at all levels of the school have been shown time and time again to have significant short and long term benefits.
Easy Ways to Encourage Community Engagement in Your School Volunteering is one of the most common and popular ways to encourage community involvement in schools. Make Community Involvement a Priority for Your School The responsibility for raising a well-educated and civic-minded generation of children cannot rest solely with schools. Stay Informed! Even though the plaintiff appealed the decision, the Fifth Circuit Court also ruled in favour of the school board after implementing a four-step system that is still used today.
Firstly, a school board has to have the right to set up a policy. Secondly, the policy must be determined to support a fundamental interest of the board as a whole. Thirdly, the guidelines cannot have been set for the purpose of censorship. Finally, the limits on student expression cannot be greater than the interest of the board. As long as these four policies are in place, then no constitutional violation can be claimed. In the Forney Independent School District of Forney, Texas in , the school board decided to implement a school uniform policy allowing the students to wear a polo shirt , oxford shirt or blouse in four possible colours, and blue or khaki trousers or shirts, a skirt or jumper.
While there was some flexibility with shoes, certain types were prohibited along with any sort of baggy clothes. The parents of the Littlefield family requested that their son be exempt from the policy, but were denied. In response, the Littlefields filed a lawsuit against the school district, under the pretenses that this uniform mandate infringed on their rights as parents to control how they brought up their children and their education. They even went as far as to cite an infringement on religious freedom, claiming that opting out of the uniforms on the grounds of religion allowed the school to rank the validity of certain religions.
Before trial, the District Court dismissed the case, so the family appealed. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the students' rights were not being violated even though the claims presented were valid. They ruled that school rules derived from the education would override the parents' right to control their children's upbringing in this specific situation.
As far as the religious freedom violation accusations, the court ruled that the policy did not have a religious goal, and thus did not infringe on religious freedom rights. In , Liberty High School, a school of the Clark County School District in Henderson, Nevada , implemented a uniform policy of khakis and red, white or blue polo shirts. A junior by the name of Kimberly Jacobs was suspended a total of five times because she wore a religious shirt to school and got cited for uniform violations.
Her family sued the Clark County School District under the claims that her First Amendment rights were being infringed upon and that the uniform policy was causing students to be deprived of due process. The plaintiff's requests were for injunctive relief, the expunging of suspensions from Jacob's school record and awarding of damages. The injunction was granted to the family meaning that the school could no longer discipline her for breaking the uniform policy. At this ruling, the school district appealed. The next court ruled on the side of the school district as it determined that the uniform policy was in fact neutral and constitutional, and it dismissed the claims of the plaintiff.
In , a Nevada public elementary school of the Washoe County School District decided to add the school's motto, Tomorrow's Leaders embroidered in small letters on the shirt. In response, Mary and John Frudden, parents of a student sued the school district on the basis of it violating the 1st Amendment. The court ultimately dismissed the case filed by the Fruddens over the uniforms. However, the family appealed, and two years later, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.
Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case. The court ruled to reverse the previous decision of dismissing the case, and also questioned the apparent policy for students that were part of a nationally recognised group such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts who were able to wear the uniforms in place of the school ones on regular meeting days. The 9th circuit panel ruled that the school had not provided enough evidence for why it instituted this policy, and that the family was never given a chance to argue.
There are several positive and negative social implications of uniforms on both the students wearing them and society as a whole. One of the criticisms of uniforms is that it imposes standards of masculinity and femininity from a young age. Uniforms are considered a form of discipline that schools use to control student behavior and often promote conventional gendered dress. Boys often are required to wear trousers, belts, and closed-toe shoes and have their shirts tucked in at all times. They are also often required to have their hair cut short. Some critics allege that this uniform is associated with the dress of a professional business man, which, they claim, gives boys at a young age the impression that masculinity is gained through business success.
For girls, many uniforms promote femininity by requiring girls to wear skirts. Skirts are seen by some critics as a symbol of femininity because they restrict movement and force certain ways of sitting and playing. Some girls' school uniforms have been criticized as having an uncomfortable design, which prevents girls from freedom of movement and exposes girls to cold during winter. School uniforms are embedded with gender symbolism. Schools that require students to wear a formal uniform almost universally provide trousers for boys and skirts or dresses for girls. Skirts differentiate the male from the female, thereby confirming traditional gender identities for students who must wear the correct attire corresponding to their sex.
Skirts and dresses demand a particular type of feminine gender performance, whereas trousers demand a particular masculine gender performance. By forcing students to wear attire that corresponds with their sex inherently assigns the ways a student must perform their gender. This causes controversy when a student does not want to identify with a gender that does not align with their sex. There are rarely guidelines that allow for students to dress according to their performed gender, but almost always according to their sex assigned at birth. Around middle or junior school , students begin going through puberty. Uniforms can be seen as a way to restrict the sexualization of girls by taking the focus away from sexuality and focus it on academics in a school setting for girls.
Sometimes the desire to prevent overtly sexualized clothing through uniforms can fail. As an example, miniskirts have been very popular in Japan, where they are common parts of school uniforms and came to be worn within the Kogal culture. Schoolgirl uniforms are used in costumes in the context of "Sexy SchoolGirl" and are sold on costume sites year round. The idea of the female school uniform has become sexual and in Britain a new survey from Plan International UK found that a third of girls have been sexually harassed while wearing their school uniform. School uniforms can encourage harassment as children, as our culture defines the "schoolgirl look" to be sexual. Children as young as 8 years old report being victims of, or witnesses to, harassment.
Two-thirds of the children questioned in the survey said they have experienced "unwanted sexual attention" in public, and 35 percent said they have been touched, groped or grabbed without their consent. These experiences teach girls that being harassed by men is just a part of growing up. The perception of schoolgirl uniforms allows for men to harass girls at a young age, causing girls to self-objectify their bodies from the beginning of their schooling experience. Debates concerning the constitutionality and economic feasibility of uniforms also contribute to the controversy. In the United States, the implementation of school uniforms began following ten years of research indicating the effectiveness of private schools.
Some state-school reformers cited this research to support policies linked to private and Catholic school success. Some public-school administrators hence began implementing uniform policies to improve the overall school environment and academic achievement of the students. This is based on the assumption that uniforms are the direct cause of behavioral and academic outcome changes. Another area of controversy regarding school uniform and dress code policies revolve around the issue of gender. Nowadays, more teenagers are more frequently "dressing to articulate, or confound gender identity and sexual orientation ", which brings about "responses from school officials that ranged from indifferences to applause to bans".
Instances include the following: . Although not all schools in the United States are required to wear school uniforms, the United States is slowly adopting the use of school uniforms. In some areas uniforms have become essential due to the poverty level that the schools reside in. Stephanie Northen of The Guardian wrote that school uniforms are less controversial in the United Kingdom compared to the United States and are usually not opposed on free speech grounds.
Advocates of uniforms have proposed multiple reasons supporting their implementation and claiming their success in schools. A variety of these claims have no research supporting them. Some of these pros include the following: Advocates believe that uniforms affect student safety by: . Kathleen Wade conducted an experiment to see if bullying and gang presence was higher in uniform or non-uniform schools.
The research was done with multiple schools where she gave a questionnaire to both students, and faculty to see if there was a significant difference. Her results showed that bullying and gang presence significantly decreases with students wearing school uniforms. Advocates also believe that uniforms increase student learning and positive attitudes toward school through:. Wearing uniforms leads to decreased behavior problems by increasing attendance rates, lowering suspension rates, and decreasing substance use among the student body. Proponents also attribute positive psychological outcomes like increased self-esteem, increased spirit, and reinforced feelings of oneness among students to wearing uniforms.
Additional proponent arguments include that school uniforms: . Currently pros of school uniforms center around how uniforms affect schools' environments. Proponents have found a significant positive impact on school climate, safety, and students' self-perception from the implementation of uniforms. The opposing side of uniforms has claimed their ineffectiveness using a variety of justifications, a variety of which have research supporting them. Some of the cons to school uniforms include the following legal, financial, and questionable effectiveness concerns:  The primary concern with school uniforms or strict dress codes is that it limits the ability of students to express themselves. Clothing is viewed as a mean of expression — making all students wear the same clothes or limit them to what they can wear can disrupt their sense of identity.
One of the main controversies can lie within Dress Code Policies vs. Freedom of Speech. However, students can wear clothing artifacts that express their religion. Another negative aspect of school uniforms is that it can be sexist. Boys and girls are also not disciplined the same when it comes to dress codes. Girls are more commonly disciplined for "certain articles of" attire that are prohibited because they "distract" boys. Uniforms also generally disadvantage students, especially girls, in freedom of movement and comfort.
The research was conducted on an Australian independent private school and its uniform. For girls, the light coloured cotton school dress was restrictive, see-through, hot, uncomfortable, and impractical. Furthermore, the stockings were often cold, grey woolen kilt was too heavy and restrictive of movement, and the wind could cause it to reveal more than the girls wanted. When playing and moving around, for boys, the tie was a choking hazard, and the trousers had no stretch.
Research on how school uniforms and school dress codes influence the student can be inconclusive. According to Marian Wilde,  additional opponent arguments include that school uniforms:.As far as the religious freedom violation accusations, the court ruled that the policy did not have a religious goal, and thus did not infringe on religious freedom rights. Students may also speak The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with One Today By Maya Angelou Analysis to The Benefits Of Uniforms In Public Schools topics. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol.