Chin, Ho, Mah, Pan 1

Wei Chin

Tiffany Ho

Doris Mah

Angela Pan

English I H.

Mr. Moran

24 April 2008

School Uniforms: Rebuttal to the Pro

The debate over school uniforms over the years has been long with both sides having

equally good points. Students do indeed wear uniforms throughout the world, but many oppose

them. Our opposition has pointed out several points that contribute to what they believe will

improve chances of school uniforms becoming mandatory. They point out that uniforms saves

time and money, limits discrimination, and creates a healthy environment. Through our rebuttal,

we hope to prove them wrong.

There is no point in arguing that uniforms does indeed save time when one is waking up

in the morning. However, what is miscalculated is the fact that, school uniforms take longer all

together. Many uniforms are required to be ironed and tucked in, tasks that usually take ten to

twenty minutes all together. Wearing normal clothing does not use the two tasks, and so the

amount of time used can be spent looking for the perfect look. In total, school uniforms really

does not make the mornings easier or time efficient. If you wake up early, you still wake up

early, with or without uniforms. If you’re late, you’re still late, one way or the other. Another

point brought up is finance. Our opponents argue that parents no longer have to buy brand name

uniforms. However, students will still ask for them as “weekend clothes”. Parents then pay
 Chin, Ho, Mah, Pan 2

double the price of what they usually pay where uniforms are not mandatory. What our

opponents fail to realize is the fact that the washing of uniforms also require money. The fewer

amounts of clothes, the more you are required to wash them. Furthermore, there may be help for

the costs for school uniforms, yet the chances of getting help is decreasing over the years.

According to the Family Welfare Association, nearly a third of local education authorities do not

help families on low incomes with the costs of buying school uniforms. Even with LEA

(Lutheran Education Association) to help, in nearly 40 per cent of cases the funding rarely meets

even half of the actual cost.

It is easy to jump to conclusions, and through statistics collected carefully, we are able to

prove them wrong on the statement of crime. Sure, uniforms may make the school look more

organized, yet there is no distinct advantage caused by uniforms. David L. Brunsma, once a

professor at the University of Alabama, and Kerry A. Rockquemore, a professor at the University

of Illinois Chicago, published a study in The Journal of Education Research titled “Effects of

Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic

Achievement”. Using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study, they collected

national samples of eight graders, and continued collecting data from them all the way until

college. In the authors’ own words:

Student uniform use was not significantly correlated with any of the school commitment

variables such as absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students

wearing uniforms did not appear to have any significantly different academic

preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peer group structures with proschool attitudes than

other students. Moreover, the negative correlations between the attitudinal variables and
 Chin, Ho, Mah, Pan 3

the various outcomes of interest are significant; hence, the predictive analysis provides

more substantive results.

What the authors did find is that pre-school habits of students improved their results in school.

School uniforms did not lead at all to good performance.

Discrimination happens whether or not you share the same clothes. Wealthier parents

tend to provide expensive jewelry and shoes, both of which, are not usually part of dress codes.

If you examine everything closer, there is not only the discrimination of level of income. There is

also discrimination of gender, race, religion, and physical appearance. Currently, the world is

based upon looks. According to Mary M on Yahoo Answer:

Kids still made fun of other kids for what they were wearing, because they looked

different than them in their uniform. Like larger kids were made fun of, and it made you

so much more self-conscious. It actually triggered a relapse in my eating disorder

anorexia when I had the uniform, because, since everyone else was wearing the same

thing, you could see the difference, like if you were bigger. All I did all day was compare

myself to the others, and I couldn't concentrate on anything else.

There can still be discrimination even if uniforms tried to cover it up. The wealthier students are

able to buy a larger amount of uniforms, and have enough money to buy them. However,

students that do not share the same amount of wealth, are forced to wear the same thing over and

over again. When something is worn over and over again, it can become torn or turn colors. Then

it is easy to distinguish the social class between students.

Our opponents are correct; but only of the fact that children are indeed still growing

during their years at school. Their habits in school with directly impact their future, and so it is

important to make right decisions. Loren Siegel, Director of the Public Education Department,
 Chin, Ho, Mah, Pan 4

ACLU, points out, school administrators and teachers have been reluctant to impose the school

uniform policy on high school students, because it most certainly will cause the teenagers to

rebel (Siegel 1). Uniforms are against the first amendment, “the freedom of speech”. Uniforms

are part of how we express ourselves; therefore, even students should be allowed to speak their

opinions. However, this is not the case. When one does not follow the dress code, punishment is

to follow. In 1961, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student’s rights to free

expression in private school in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. According to the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, schools may not "abridge the rights of students as to personal

dress and appearance,” banning public schools to having dress codes. Even more states have

followed in that direction, declaring that public schools must allow students to drop out of

uniform policies.

The Pro group does indeed provide good points on their counterarguments, but through

data, we have been able to prove them wrong in certain areas of their argument. Discrimination

will happen no matter what, and a uniform does not contribute to creating a better environment

for learning. Time and money are both two very important issues, but they failed to realize the

deeper picture that surrounds the debate over school uniforms.

 Chin, Ho, Mah, Pan 5

Work Cited

• Felch , Raymond F. III. ""School Uniforms: Prevention or Suppression?""

29 April 2008 <http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformRay.html>.

• "Authorities fail to help with uniforms". Community Care. 29 April 2008

<http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25103590_ITM>.

• May. "School Uniforms?”. 29 April 2008

<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070826151107AATN3qE>.

• "School Uniforms". Wikipedia. 29 April 2008

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_uniforms>.

• Brunsma, David L. Rockquemore, Kerry A. "The Effects of Student Uniforms on

Attendance, Behavior Problems,". 29 April 2008

<http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm>.