School uniform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A school uniform is an outfit—a set of standardised clothes—worn primarily for an educational institution. They are common in primary and secondary schools in various countries. When used, they form the basis of a school's dress code. Although often used interchangeably, there is an important distinction between school dress codes and school uniforms. According to scholars such as Joseph (1986), clothing can be considered a uniform when it "(a) serves as a group emblem, (b) certifies an institution's legitimacy by revealing individual’s relative positions and (c) suppresses individuality."[1] An example of a uniform would be requiring white button-downs and ties for boys and pleated skirts for girls, with both wearing blazers. A uniform can even be as simple as requiring collared shirts, or restricting colour choices and limiting items students are allowed to wear. A dress code on the other hand is much less restrictive, and according to Wilde "focus(es) on promoting modesty and discouraging anti-social fashion statements."[2] Examples of a dress code would be not allowing ripped clothing, no logos or limiting the amount of skin that can be shown.

History of the Uniform[edit]

It is difficult to trace the origins of the uniform as there is no comprehensive written history but rather a variety of known influences. Uniforms are conservative in a way, but as society and culture has evolved so has the school uniform (Davidson and Rae 1990).[3] Little is known prior to the nineteenth century about uniforms, but there certainly are influences dating back to the 13th century. As an example, in 1222 we know the Archbishop of Canterbury ordered monks to wear a stereotypical monastic form of dress-perhaps the earliest standardised example of an academic uniform. Despite this example, the roots of the modern day uniform come mostly from the collegiate uniforms in England. Universities, primary schools and secondary schools used uniforms as a marker of class and status, which in turn served as a boundary.[4] As early as the sixteenth century, and perhaps earlier, uniforms were utilised and became more and more specific as various fashion trends became undesirable to the university. Much more can be said about the development and roots of the uniform, but in regard to the United States the "official" movement toward using uniforms in public schools began when Bill Clinton addressed it in the State of the Union in 1996. He said, "if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear uniforms."[5] According to studies, as of 1998 approximately 25% of all public elementary, middle and junior high schools had adopted a uniform policy or were considering a policy, and two thirds were implemented between 1995 and 1997 (Wade & Stafford, 2003).[6] Historically uniforms have been used to serve different purposes, from class division to religion to equality.

The Uniform Today[edit]

There are an abundance of theories and empirical studies looking at school uniforms, making statements about their effectiveness. These theories and studies elaborate on the benefits and also the shortcomings of uniform policies. The issue of nature vs. nurture comes into play, as uniforms affect the perceptions of masculinity and femininity, complicate the issue of gender classification and also subdue the sexuality of girls. With uniforms also comes a variety of controversies, pros, cons and major legal implications. All of these ideas are explored further below.

Students of the Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney in uniform, 1950.
Children in school uniform with their lunch; Bona Espero School, Alto Paraíso de Goiás, Brazil
A summer shirt school uniforms of Chaozhou Vocational Technical School, Guangdong, China
Mizo school students in uniform, Hnahthial, Mizoram, India
Vietnamese schoolgirls in uniform (white Áo dài)

Major Theories and Empirical Findings[edit]

There are two main empirical findings that are most often cited in the political rhetoric surrounding the uniform debate. One of these, the case study of the Long Beach Unified School District, is most often cited in support of school uniforms and their effectiveness whereas Brunsma et al. (1998), Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement is the most frequently cited research in opposition to the implementation of school uniform policies.

Long Beach Unified School District

The case study of the Long Beach Unified School District was the study of the first large, urban school in the United States to implement a uniform policy. In 1994, mandatory school uniforms were implemented for the districts elementary and middle schools as a strategy to address the students’ behavior issues.[7] The district simultaneously implemented a longitudinal study to research the effects of the uniforms on student behavior. The study attributed favorable student behavioral changes and a significant drop in school discipline issues[8] to the mandatory uniform policy. This case study attributed the following noticeable outcomes to the use of uniforms throughout the district:

  • Fewer absences and truancies
  • Fewer referrals to the office for behavior problems
  • Fewer suspensions and expulsions (Reed)
    • Reduced by 28% (elementary) and 36% (middle school)
  • Decreased crime and vandalism (Reed)
    • Reduced by 74% (elementary) and 18% (middle school)
  • Better grades, and in some cases, significantly higher achievement (Polacheck, 1996, p. 7)[9]

Brunsma et al. (1998): Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement

The Brunsma et al. (1998)[10] research, on the other hand, empirically examined how a school uniform affects attendance, behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. In this very well known study, researchers tested the following hypotheses:

  • Student uniforms decrease substance use
  • Student uniforms decrease behavioral problems
  • Student uniforms increase attendance
  • Student uniforms increase academic achievement

Researchers in this study expected that the direct of uniforms on these outcomes would disappear once the moderating variables were introduced to the equation. If this were to be the case, then arguments proclaiming uniform policies’ direct effect on said outcomes would be proven false. This study used a nationally representative sample of students. From the results, researchers were able to conclude that students wearing uniforms did not have any significant difference in academic preparedness or proschool attitudes than other students. Researchers also found that student uniforms were not significantly correlated with school commitment variables such as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In terms of the original four hypotheses researchers found that:

  • Student uniforms were not an effective deterrent to decrease absenteeism
  • Student uniforms did not decrease behavior problems
  • Student uniforms did not decrease substance use
  • Student uniforms did not increase student achievement

Because the four hypotheses were not supported, researcher were able to conclude that implementing uniform policies at the high school level does not create the desired outcomes, as all four of the original hypotheses were derived from public discourse surrounding the uniform debate. In fact, Brunsma et al., 1998 found that uniforms had a significant negative effect on achievement, as students who wore uniforms and had high proschool attitudes actually had worse behavior problems than all other students. Researchers in this study suggested that "instead of directly affecting specific outcomes, uniforms act as a catalyst for change and provide a highly visible opportunity for additional programs" within schools. In fact, Brunsma et al., 1998 found that this was the case with the Long Beach Unified School District case study, as several additional reform efforts were implemented simultaneously with the mandatory uniform policy.

Laws and rulings[edit]

As uniforms have become more normalised, there have also been an increasing number of lawsuits brought against school districts. According to David Brunsma, one in four public elementary schools and one in eight public middle and high schools in the USA have policies dictating what a student wears to school.[11] The school code within states’ constitutions typically asserts that it allows the board of school directors to make reasonable rules and regulations as they see fit in managing the school’s affairs. As of 2008, there are currently 23 states that allow school districts to mandate school uniforms.[12] The constitutional objections usually brought upon school districts tend to fall into one of the following two categories: (1) a violation of the students’ First Amendment right to free expression (2) a violation of parents to raise their children without government interference. Although up until this point, The Supreme Court has not ruled on a case involving school uniforms directly, in the 1968 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court ruled that upon entering school, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.[13]

Examples of lawsuits[edit]

Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board

In the Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board lawsuit in 2000, a Louisiana district court ruled in favor of the school board because it did not see how the free speech rights of the students were being violated. Even though the plaintiff appealed the decision, the Fifth Circuit Court also ruled in favor 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.[14]

Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District

In Forney, Texas in 2001, 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 pants 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 unfortunately 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.[15]

Jacobs v. Clark County School District

In 2003, Liberty High School 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.[16]

Fruedden v. Washoe County School District

In 2011, a Nevada public elementary school 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’s guarantee of free speech. The court ultimately dismissed the case filed by the Frudden’s over the uniforms. . However, the family appealed, and two years later, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. 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.[17]

Internationally, there are differing views of school uniforms. In the Australian state of Queensland, Ombudsman Fred Albietz ruled in 1998 that public schools[when defined as?] may not require uniforms.[18] In the Philippines, the Department of Education abolished the requirement of school uniforms in public schools per DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2008. In England and Wales, technically a state school may not permanently exclude students for "breaching school uniform policy", under a policy promulgated by the Department for Children, Schools and Families but students not wearing the correct uniform are asked to go home and change.

High School children in Rocester, UK

In Scotland, some local councils (that have responsibility for delivering state education) do not insist on students wearing a uniform as a precondition to attending and taking part in curricular activities.[19] Turkey abolished mandatory uniforms in 2010.[20]

Social Implications of Uniforms on Gender[edit]

There are several positive and negative social implications of uniforms on both the students wearing them and society as a whole.

Implications on Perceptions of Masculinity and Femininity[edit]

One of the primary criticisms of uniforms is that the standards of masculinity and femininity they impose on students from a very young age. Uniforms are a form of discipline that schools use to control students’ behavior and often promote conventional gendered dress.[21][22] Boys often are required to wear pants, belts, and closed-toe shoes and have their shirts tucked in at all times. They are also often required to have their hair short. This uniform is associated with the dress of a professional business man, which gives boys at a young age the impression that masculinity is gained through business success.[23] For girls, uniforms promote femininity by requiring girls to wear skirts. Skirts are seen as a symbol of femininity because they restrict movement and force certain ways of sitting and playing.[22] In these ways, uniforms promote masculinity in boys and femininity in girls.

Implications for Transgendered Students[edit]

Another criticism of uniforms is that they promote a binary gender classification.[22][24] There are uniforms for females and uniforms for males but no options for students who do not necessarily identify as totally female or totally male. Therefore, students are not given the opportunity to explore their gender identity and must conform to the binary gender system. These students are punished for their exploration of gender expression because it violates uniform and dress codes (such as boys not having their hair longer than shoulder length or girls only being allowed to wear skirts and tights).[25] However, proponents of uniforms say that schools are a place for academic learning and that there must be some limitations on individual expression. They argue that if schools do not enforce rules, some focus on learning may be lost.[25]

Implications for the Sexualization of Girls[edit]

Uniforms often start to increase in popularity around middle school when students begin going through puberty. Uniforms can be seen as a way to restrict the sexualization of girls (rules on hems of skirts, no shoulders). Uniforms take the focus away from sexuality and focus it on academics in a school setting for girls.[26]

Controversies[edit]

General[edit]

The topic of school uniforms has sparked a multitude of controversies and debates over the years. In many instances, this controversy starts from educational leadership claiming the effectiveness of school uniforms without significant research or data to back up their claims. Debates concerning the constitutionality and economic feasibility of uniforms also contribute to the controversy. More recently, controversy has risen from conflicts of gender with the dress code, as more frequently students are not always identifying with a female or male gender role. Some students might identify with a gender that differs significantly from their biological sex, creating a unique situation involving school uniforms and dress codes. See below for more information on the controversies surrounding school uniforms.

The implementation of school uniforms began due to ten years worth of research indicating the effectiveness of private schools. Some public school reformers took this research to aid in the consideration of implementing policies that are linked to private and catholic school success. However, within the Catholic school literature, school uniforms have never been acknowledged as a primary factor in producing a Catholic school effect[27] (Bryk, Lee, & Holland 1993 pp 286–287)[28] Regardless of the lack of evidence, public school administrators began implementing uniform policies in order to improve the overall school environment and academic achievement of the students. This implementation of school uniforms is based on the assumption that uniforms are the direct cause of behavioral and academic outcome changes.[28] These assumptions are largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence, but are used to put uniform policies in place nonetheless.

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[25]”. In 2009, there were multiple conflicts across the United States arising from disparities between the students’ perception of their own gender, and the school administrators’ perception of the students’ gender identity. Instances include the following:[29]

  • Spring 2009: Marion County, FL – Students must dress "in keeping with their gender"
    • Boy came to school wearing high-heeled boots, a stuffed bra, and a V-neck T-shirt, he was sent home to change because he was "cross-dressing"
  • May 2009: gay male student at LA high school was crowned prom queen
  • Aug 2009: Mississippi senior female barred from yearbook because she had posed in a tuxedo
  • Sept 2009: Tucson, AZ a freshman girl who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince
  • Oct 2009: Cobb County, GA sent home a boy who favored wigs, makeup, and skinny jeans
  • Nov 2009: Cross-dressing Houston senior was sent home because his wig violated the school’s dress code rule that a boy’s hair may not be "longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar"

Significant controversy associated with gender and uniform policies is due to the fact that disciplining a student whose wardrobe deviates from expected sexual orientation or gender, anti-discrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards, and classroom distractions must be taken into account (Hoffman). Oftentimes, in making decisions about how particular students can and cannot dress, it becomes a question of whether or not the administration is protecting the students from peer harassment, or whether the administration is harassing the student themselves.

Pros[edit]

Advocates of uniforms have proposed multiple reasons supporting their implementation and claiming their success in schools. A variety of these claims have research supporting them. Some of these pros include the following: Advocates believe that uniforms affect student safety by:[30]

  • Lowering student victimization
  • Decrease gang activity and fights[31]
  • Differentiating strangers from students in school buildings

For example, in the first year of the mandatory uniform policy in Long Beach, California, officials reported that fighting in schools decreased by more than 50%, assault and battery by 34%, sex offenses by 74%, and robbery by 66%.[31] Advocates also believe that uniforms increase student learning and positive attitudes toward school through:

  • Enhanced learning environments
  • Heightened school pride
  • Increased student achievement
  • High levels of preparedness
  • Conformity to organizational goals
  • Increased chance of staying in school[32]
  • Increased commitment to learning[32]
  • Increased use of school setting to the student’s advantage[32]

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:[33]

  • Encourage discipline
  • Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes
  • Diminish economic and social barriers between students

Currently pros of school uniforms center around how uniforms impact schools' environments. Proponents have found a significant positive impact on school climate, safety, and students’ self-perception from the implementation of uniforms.

Cons[edit]

Those who oppose the implementation of uniforms have 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:[34]

  • Legal concerns
    • Focus on the supposition that requiring a uniform violates children’s individual rights (Thomas, 1994; Virginia State Dep’t of Edu, 1992)
    • Mandatory uniform policies are being considered largely for urban school districts, and, hence are being forced on a predominantly minority and poor student population (Thomas, 1994)
  • Financial concerns
    • Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have voiced concerns about the cost of uniforms, specifically that some disadvantaged parents are unable to afford them (Gursky, 1996)
  • Questionable effectiveness of those policies
    • Strongest opponents of uniform policies charge that no empirical evidence exists to support the numerous and varied claims of uniform proponents (LaPorte, Holoman, & Alleyne, 1992)
    • School uniforms suppress students’ individuality by mandating standardization of appearance and removing student expression (Joseph, 1986[35])
    • While uniform policies have been linked to school climate, safety, and student self-perception, there is no evidence to indicate that a uniform policy increases academic achievement (Wade & Stafford, 2003[36])

According to Marian Wilde,[37] additional opponent arguments include that school uniforms:

  • Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence
  • Make students a target for bullies from other schools
  • Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education
  • Are difficult to enforce in public schools

Conclusions[edit]

No definitive conclusions on uniforms can be made, despite all the theories and empirical findings on the subject. Some studies have certainly shown the benefits of uniforms, like the Long Beach Unified School District study, which concluded there was some type of positive correlation between their uniform policy and student behavior. On the other hand, Brunsma’s study saw that uniforms did not decrease behavior problems, absenteeism, or substance abuse and also did not increase student achievement. In addition to these studies there are other implications, especially in regards to gender. A uniform can allow a school to control gendered dress, but that can become a large issue when looking at gender classification in such a binary way. There still exist many pros for school uniforms, such as decreasing gang activity, differentiating intruders, better learning environments and breaking down social barriers to name a few. Despite this there are an equal number of drawbacks, such as individual rights violation, cost, lack of empirical evidence in support of uniforms and simply being a band-aid on school violence. With controversy often comes legal ramifications and there certainly is no shortage of that in regards to school uniforms, particularly in a country where individual expression and freedom is so highly valued. Perhaps only time as well as more research will lead us closer to determining the true pros and cons of uniforms.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Joseph, Nathan (1986). Uniforms and nonuniforms : communication through clothing. New York: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313251959. 
  2. ^ Wilde, Marian. "Do Uniforms Make Schools Better". GreatSchools.net. 
  3. ^ Davidson, Alexander; Rae, John (February 19, 1990). Blazers, Badges and Boaters: Pictorial History of School Uniform. Praeger. ISBN 0906619254. 
  4. ^ Brunsma, David L. (2004). The School Uniform Movement and What it Tells Us about American Education : a Symbolic Crusade. Lanham, Md. [u.a.]: ScarecrowEducation. p. 4. ISBN 157886125X. 
  5. ^ Boutelle, Marsha (2003). "UNIFORMS: Are They A Good Fit?". Educational Digest 73 (6): 34–37. 
  6. ^ Wade, Kathleen; Stafford, Mary (August 2003). "Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions". Education and Urban Society 35 (4): 399–420. 
  7. ^ Reed, Joshua B. "Effects of a School Uniform Policy on an Urban School District." Northern Michigan University. N.p., 1 Aug. 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Files/Pre-Drupal/SiteSections/Students/GradPapers/Projects/Reed_Joshua_MP.pdf>.Wade, K. K., & Stafford, M. E. (2003). Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 399–420. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503255002
  8. ^ Reed, Joshua B. "Effects of a School Uniform Policy on an Urban School District." Northern Michigan University. N.p., 1 Aug. 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Files/Pre-Drupal/SiteSections/Students/GradPapers/Projects/Reed_Joshua_MP.pdf>.Wade, K. K., & Stafford, M. E. (2003). Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 399–420. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503255002
  9. ^ Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <https://faculty.unlv.edu/sloe/Courses/EPY%20702/Class%20Exercises/Lecture%201%20Materials/Articles/Brunsma%20et%20al.%20(1998).pdf>
  10. ^ Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <https://faculty.unlv.edu/sloe/Courses/EPY%20702/Class%20Exercises/Lecture%201%20Materials/Articles/Brunsma%20et%20al.%20(1998).pdf>
  11. ^ Brunsma, David L. Uniforms in Public Schools: A Decade of Research and Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006. Print.
  12. ^ Colasanti, Michael. "School Uniforms and Dress Codes: State Policies." StateNote (2008). Education Commission of the States. Education Commission of the States. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/97/7797.pdf>.
  13. ^ Kraft, Jacquelyn. Society's Perceptions and Attitudes Toward School Uniforms. Research Paper. University of Wisconsin-Stout. August 2003. Web http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.8124&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  14. ^ "First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case." First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. First Amendment Schools. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1690>.
  15. ^ "First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case." First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. First Amendment Schools. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1693>
  16. ^ "Jacobs v. Clark County School District." The Recorder. 12 May 2008. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202421325288/Jacobs-v-Clark-County-School-District?slreturn=20150319150918>.
  17. ^ "Appeals Court Revives Reno School Uniform Case." Elko Daily. Elko Daily Free Press, 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. <http://elkodaily.com/news/appeals-court-revives-reno-school-uniform-case/article_a8e75868-973c-11e3-8412-001a4bcf887a.html>.
  18. ^ "Those disgusting School Uniforms (B)". Optionality Magazine. Retrieved 30 November 2007. 
  19. ^ "Authority Strategic Statement of Inverclyde Education Service". Gourock High School. Retrieved 28 September 2009. 
  20. ^ School uniform requirement to be abolished
  21. ^ Connell, R. W. "Teaching the Boys: New Research on Masculinity, and Gender Strategies for Schools". Teachers College Record 98:2 (1996): 206-235. Web. 31 March 2015.
  22. ^ a b c Happel, Alison. "Ritualized girling: school uniforms and the compulsory performance of gender." Journal of Gender Studies 22:1 (2013): 92-96. Web. 1 April 2015.
  23. ^ Craik, J. "Uniforms Exposed: The Proliferation of Uniforms in Popular Culture as Markers of Change and Identity." Uniformierungen in Bewegung. Ed. Gabreile Mentges, Dagmar Neuland-Kitzerow, and Birgit Richard. Munster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2007. 37-53. Online.
  24. ^ DePalmaa, R. and Atkinson, E. "The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary schools and practice-based responses." Teaching and Teacher Education 26:8 (2010): 1669-1676. Web 8 April 2015.
  25. ^ a b c Hoffman, J. "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?" New York Times. 6 Nov. 2009: ST1. Online. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/fashion/08cross.html?pagewanted=all&_r=
  26. ^ American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
  27. ^ The Catholic school effect is the thought that certain elements in a catholic school provide children with a stronger academic education
  28. ^ a b Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.
  29. ^ Hoffman, J. "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?" New York Times. 6 *Nov. 2009: ST1. Online. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/fashion/08cross.html?pagewanted=all&_r=
  30. ^ Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <https://faculty.unlv.edu/sloe/Courses/EPY%20702/Class%20Exercises/Lecture%201%20Materials/Articles/Brunsma%20et%20al.%20(1998).pdf>
  31. ^ a b Wade, K. K., & Stafford, M. E. (2003). Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 399–420. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503255002
  32. ^ a b c Murray, R. K. (1997). The Impact of School Uniforms on School Climate. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 106–112. http://doi.org/10.1177/019263659708159314
  33. ^ Wilde, Marian. The Debate Over Dress Codes and Uniforms (2006): 1-3.Boward Teacher's Union. July 2006. Web. 09 Apr. 201
  34. ^ Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <https://faculty.unlv.edu/sloe/Courses/EPY%20702/Class%20Exercises/Lecture%201%20Materials/Articles/Brunsma%20et%20al.%20(1998).pdf>
  35. ^ Joseph, Nathan. Uniforms and Nonuniforms: Communication through Clothing. Greenwood Press, New York, NY, 1986. ProQuest. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
  36. ^ Wade, Kathleen Kiley, and Mary E. Stafford. "Public School Uniforms. Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions." Education and Urban Society 35.4 (2003): 399-420. ProQuest. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
  37. ^ Wilde, Marian. The Debate Over Dress Codes and Uniforms (2006): 1-3.Boward Teacher's Union. July 2006. Web. 09 Apr. 2015. <http://www.btuonline.com/pdfs/Education%20News%20PDFs/uniformdebate.pdf>.

External links[edit]