We are told we need uniforms because the public schools are in bad shape. Violence is rampant, kids in schools are getting killed over designer jackets, assaults on teachers are frequent, and, as Time magazine tells us, more than , students carry a weapon to school each day.
The perception of a crisis of violence raises the pressure on schools and politicians to act quickly. The urge to do something has become widespread.
We have very little empirical data on the cause-and-effect relationship between uniforms and violence. Because this policy initiative in the public schools is new, we have no track record, just a young body of evidence that is woefully sparse.
What do we know? We have a myriad of anecdotal reports from teachers, parents, and administrators saying that violence has been reduced in their schools with uniforms, that the students are more serious, well-behaved, and focused on their studies, that they have higher self-esteem, that ethnic and racial tensions have decreased, that absenteeism is down, and academic performance up.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals recently released results from a survey it conducted of 5, secondary school principals, showing that 70 percent believe requiring students to wear uniforms will lower the incidence of discipline problems and violent behaviors.
All these testimonials and high hopes are undoubtedly sincere and based on personal experience in the schools. But what about documented results?
The Long Beach, Calif. Long Beach appears to be the only district so far that has provided documented results indicating that uniforms improve student behavior.
District officials supply data showing a dramatic decline in violence in their K-8 schools from to , including a 51 percent drop in physical fights, a 34 percent drop in assaults and batteries, a 50 percent drop in weapons offenses, and a 32 percent drop in suspensions. See Education Week, Feb.
Simplistic attribution of these declines over one year--and only in grades Kto the wearing of school uniforms is problematic. Other factors may be intertwined with and responsible for the decline--presuming the data are trustworthy and that there were no changes in how violence was measured from one year to the next. In order to eliminate competing explanations for the decline, we must ask what other factors might account for the change in Long Beach during this period.
Was the initiation of an uniform policy only one aspect of a comprehensive safety plan that included heightened security measures and stricter rules? Did local community-policing procedures change?
Other questions would include these: Was the trend of violence in the district at its peak and ready to decline? Comparison from one year to the next does not give a trend. Perhaps increased parental involvement in the activities of the school and thus with their children is a key factor in the decline.
One Long Beach official has admitted that the district does not attribute the decline in violence exclusively to uniforms. The point is that without a careful assessment of the data over time and the elimination of competing explanations for why the reductions have taken place, the data from Long Beach have to remain suspect. And it should not be forgotten that the data are only for grades K The realities of violence in high schools are not addressed with any of the Long Beach data.
Ideally, three research techniques would be used to ensure validity and credibility of data results. First, policy effects would be measured from a historical series of observations that would enable us to determine whether the decline in violence is a real change, and not the continuation of a trend, an erratic pattern, or a recovery from an extreme. Second, data on violence would be gathered and compared from two groups of students: a group of experimental, uniformed students and a control group of students outside the school who did not wear uniforms.
Third, data would be gathered on other factors that might explain the decrease in violence, and statistical analyses would be conducted to control for these factors. This would be in an ideal world, which is rarely available to us. All we can say with certainty is that the data now available in the United States do not now support any specific conclusions about the impact of public school uniforms on violence. The real question then becomes how fast and how extensively we move forward with a policy that lacks data to support it.
The policy adrenaline is running. Do we forge ahead based on intuition, good intentions, and sincere impressionistic beliefs? Only then, he says, can they learn to think for themselves and develop self-discipline. Others also argue that student dress serves as a barometer of what is going on with the student and can signal problems such as drugs, gang membership, or sex abuse.
Uniforms would eliminate a warning system that lets teachers and administrators identify and rescue students who need help. Lastly, a uniform policy penalizes everyone instead of focusing on the small percentage of kids causing the problems.
Any number of additional unintended consequences could result from a uniform policy. If the rush to instigate such policies does not result in reduced levels of violence, increases in order and stability, and enhancements of learning, then what? Does public confidence in schools dip still lower? Do the calls for vouchers and choice programs allowing kids to leave the public schools grow louder?
Do more Draconian proposals for dealing with school violence emerge? The typical victim of an attack or robbery at school is a male in the seventh grade who is assaulted by a boy his own age. Studies suggest two reasons for the higher rates of middle school violence. First, early adolescence is a difficult age.
Young teenagers are often physically hyperactive and have not learned acceptable social behavior. Second, many middle school students have come into contact for the first time with young people from different backgrounds and distant neighborhoods. Urban schools suffer most from violence.
Many of these schools serve neighborhoods troubled by violence and gang-related crime. It is not surprising that these problems find their way onto campus. But a study of communities conducted by the National League of Cities revealed that 30 percent of suburban and rural schools also reported an increase in violence over a five-year period.
Educators and school boards across the nation are trying various measures to improve school safety. Although the goal of each school board is the same, the problem varies from district to district and even from school to school. Some school districts are relatively safe and seek to remain so. Others are plagued with problems of violence and need to restore order. So a number of different strategies are being tried in schools across the United States.
Seeing a need for discipline, many schools are enacting discipline codes. The U. Department of Education suggests that schools set guidelines for behavior that are clear and easily understood. Students should know how to respond clearly to other young people who are intoxicated, abusive, aggressive, or hostile. Students, parents, and teachers can meet and develop an honor code that will contribute to a positive learning environment.
Some schools have started first-offender and rehabilitation programs for students who have been implicated in or suspended for violent assaults at school. These programs offer tutoring and conflict mediation training for the offender and his or her parents.
In addition, students and parents may be asked to sign a contract to participate in joint counseling with school staff once the suspended student returns to school. Many school districts have adopted a zero-tolerance policy for guns. The policy seems to be weeding out students who are carrying guns.
In its first year, about students were recommended for expulsion. The following year the number increased to almost students. The increase raises questions. Is it due to better enforcement? Or is the policy not stopping students from carrying guns? Another policy rising in popularity is school uniforms. A recent study by the U. Department of Education suggests that school uniforms can help reduce theft, violence, and the negative effects of peer pressure caused when some students come to school wearing designer clothing and expensive sneakers.
A uniform code also prevents gang members from wearing colors and insignia that could cause trouble and helps school officials recognize intruders who do not belong on campus. In Long Beach, California, students, teachers, parents, and school officials worked together to establish a uniform code for all elementary and middle schools. Each school chooses what its uniform will look like.
The Long Beach program involves 58, students and includes assistance for families that cannot afford to buy uniforms. In many Long Beach schools, graduating students donate or sell their used uniforms to needy families. In the year following the establishment of the uniform policy, Long Beach school officials found that overall school crime decreased 36 percent. Fights decreased 51 percent, sex offenses decreased 74 percent, weapons offenses decreased 50 percent, assault and battery offenses decreased 34 percent, and vandalism decreased 18 percent.
Less than 1 percent of the students chose not to wear uniforms. Critics have doubts. And some parents, students, and educators find uniforms coercive and demeaning. Some students complain that uniforms turn schools into prisons. Whenever a violent incident occurs on a campus, there usually are calls to institute stricter security. Many school districts are turning to security measures such as metal detectors, surveillance cameras, X-ray machines, high fences, uniformed security guards, and increased locker searches.
Machines similar to those that line airports now stand in many school entrances. Video cameras common to convenience stores now monitor hallways of some schools.
About one-fourth of all large school districts routinely use metal detectors to keep guns off campuses.
Also, why do school uniforms reduce crime? A uniform code also prevents gang members from wearing colors and insignia that could cause trouble and helps school officials recognize intruders who do not belong on campus.
In the year following the establishment of the uniform policy, Long Beach school officials found that overall school crime decreased 36 percent. Secondly, does school uniforms stop bullying?
Recent studies have shown that school uniforms help the students' school experiences in may ways. Also, if schools had uniforms it would prepare students for everyday jobs because many jobs today require them. School Safety Advantages Uniforms help to eliminate the socioeconomic tension that affects students who cannot afford the latest trends. Makes it difficult for gang members to easily identify themselves.
Prevents violence and theft related to clothing, expensive jewelry, and other personal items. The main reason I think schools shouldn't have uniforms is because their expensive. Schools should allow students to wear what they want because the prices for the uniforms is expensive and parents don't need to spend more money on their children just for them to go to school.
By reducing competition, School Uniforms Reduce Violence. Why do we need uniforms in school? A school uniform teaches students to dress smartly and take pride in their appearance.
Why is school uniform important? School uniforms reduce crime. School uniforms instill pride, unity and school vanity. Uniforms give a sense of belonging, and a code of conduct is imposed on the student. How are uniforms safe? Mandatory uniform policies in public schools are found more commonly in high-poverty areas. Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a "level playing field" that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
0コメント