args

School uniforms should be required

This is a debate about what "should" be done. If one debates the topic "Resolved: People should brush their teeth every morning," that is debating whether it is a good idea or not, not whether it ought to be made a law. What we are debating here is whether school uniforms are a good idea or not. 1) The original contention was that the policy "promotes identity with the school and class, ... so they are more likely to help each other succeed." Con appears to grant that it works for sports teams and the military, but ultimately claimed that education had no aspects other than individual performance. Given a list of team aspects, Con argued " ... when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom." This is non-responsive, and it is wrong to suppose that only factors occurring in the classroom affect the quality of education. Uniforms promote unity of purpose, and that affects individual performance. Note that even gang members wear identifiable colors or styles because they are well aware it promotes unity of purpose, even though their purpose is anti-social. Con introduces a new argument that we should not implement any educational policy that is not proved effective. There is ample evidence the policy is effective, as Con was only able to produce one bogus study to the contrary (discussed below). However, Con's contention, if followed, makes it impossible to ever improve education, because to prove a policy effective it has to be tried, and Con asserts that we should never try anything that hasn't been proved. Con abandoned arguments that uniforms should not be required because some students wouldn't like them. 2) The second reason reason was that the policy removes a distraction and helps focus. Con argued that other distractions are possible, but made no argument that distractions would not be reduced. Examples of costume helping focus were cited, notably the tradition of judges wearing robes. Con did not rebut any example or the conclusion. Con argued that both that uniforms would mark students as targets after school, and that students would change out of their uniforms the minute that school ended. Con gave no reason why changing out of uniforms would not solve the problem he supposed, if it ever occurred. Con argues that having students decide how to dress under guidelines promotes maturity. This supposes that creativity is the major mark of maturity, not self-discipline, a wrong assumption. Con offers no evidence that students avoid immature behavior went given nothing more than guidelines. Clearly, the opposite is true. Boys seek $200 sneakers and girls seek a closet full of fashions. Without a requirement for discipline, students tend to behave with less discipline. 3) The third reason is that "It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive." Con argues that social pressure will make students conform to standards of neatness and attractiveness, but that all social pressure constitutes "bullying." There is no doubt that students will always apply and respond to social pressure, the problem is therefore to attempt to channel social pressure on to desirable paths. It is better to have students pressuring each other to be neat, that to pursuit foolish fads or engage in destructive gang behavior. 4) The fourth reason is that "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con again argues that any form of social pressure constitutes bullying. That is not responsive to the argument that some targets of social pressure are less destructive than others. 5) "It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment." This is a variant of the "judicial robes" argument, in which a distinct attire enforces behavior suited to the task. Examples were cited of the best schools overseas, in Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong, where having uniforms helps maintain a focus on education that leads to better performance. In the US, the Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. Con argues that there are many differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance. Its true that there are many differences, but they all relate to discipline and focus. I grant that just having uniforms will not solve all problems. However it is step in the right direction, and we know it is in the right direction because it moves towards the constellation of attributes associated with focus and discipline. Before-and-after studies in the Long Beach and Baltimore schools show that uniforms achieve positive effects. Con cites Brunsma and Rockquemore study, which purports to show there is no effect. It is a classic case of a bogus study. Con did not reference the actual study, which is posted at http://sociology.missouri.edu... The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. They basically end up studying schools that already had high levels of discipline, and conclude that if all else is right, then uniforms make no difference. The authors made statistical corrections for the statistically biased sample, but they give almost no information on what they did in order to get the answer they sought. They admit, for example, that Catholic schools achieve better performance, but they apply corrections to the data so it doesn't correlate to uniforms. The authors claim to be surprised by their results, but go on to reveal clear bias. For example, they dismiss the solid before-and-after case of the Long Beach School system by saying that a $1 million study ($10/student) introduced unspecified "educational reforms" that produced the dramatic changes. If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. Beyond that, the authors would surely name the reforms if they were so compelling, but they did not. Moreover, absolutely no one in the school system attributed the improvements to anything but the uniform policy. The authors bias shows throughout their intemperate and unjustified conclusions. A statistics package in the hands of a social scientist remains a dangerous thing. They should wear tuxedos when they sit down at the computer; it would promote discipline. The authors made one valid point. They suggest that the parental involvement that precipitated a policy of requiring uniforms in Long Beach may have precipitated other improvements. I suggest that parents and educators showing that they cared about educational performance had a positive effect upon performance. That's a good result and a good reason for parents and educators showing they care by adopting a uniforms policy else where. Late in the debate, Con argued that cost was a reason for not adopting a uniform requirement. In fact, one of the main reasons that Baltimore parents wanted to have school uniforms was to reduce clothing costs. Chasing fashion fads and buying many different stylish outfits is far more expensive than just a few uniforms. However, while costs are lower for middle and upper income families, there is a potential hardship for poor families. It is well worth it for the school system to provide uniforms to such families. The uniforms are guaranteed to be used, so poor kids get better clothing and costs are lowered overall. Adopting school uniforms will not solve all the problems of education. Before-and-after studies show significant improvements in performance, and virtually all of the top schools systems in the US and abroad have uniform policies as part of an overall program that focuses student