pros and cons of school uniforms research paper

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

School uniforms: Do they really improve student achievement, behavior?

This updated collection of research looks at how mandatory school uniforms impact student achievement, attendance and behavior as well as the presence of gangs in public schools.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource April 20, 2018

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/school-uniforms-research-achievement/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Decades ago, uniforms were mostly worn by students who went to private or parochial schools. But as local school boards have focused more on improving standardized test scores and campus safety, a growing number have begun requiring school uniforms — typically, a polo shirt of a particular color paired with navy or khaki pants, skirts or shorts. Nearly 22 percent of public schools in the United States required uniforms in 2015-16 — up from almost 12 percent in 1999-2000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Proponents argue that students will pay more attention to their classwork if they aren’t preoccupied with fashion, and that they’ll be better behaved. Meanwhile, school administrators say uniforms help eliminate gang-related styles and logos. They also make it easier to spot a stranger on campus.

Despite their reported benefits, mandatory uniforms are controversial because a lot of parents and students don’t like the idea of forcing children to dress alike, which they say suppresses freedom of expression. Some families complain about the financial burden of purchasing uniforms in addition to their kids’ other clothing. Years ago, parents also complained that it was difficult to find uniforms, but that ceased to be an issue after large chain stores like Target and Wal-Mart began selling them.

As public schools debate the merits of uniforms — some school boards have been bouncing the idea around for years — it’s important for journalists to know what the research says on this topic. School officials do not always consult academic research before they put a plan on the table.

To help journalists ground their reporting and fact-check claims, Journalist’s Resource has rounded up several academic studies worth reviewing. Reporters may also want to examine reports on uniform use from the NCES, which collects and reports data related to school uniforms, dress codes and book bags in public schools.

——————————–

 “School Discipline, School Uniforms and Academic Performance” Baumann, Chris; Krskova, Hana. International Journal of Educational Management , 2016. DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0118.

Summary: This study examines test scores and student behavior in the United States, Canada and 37 other countries to determine whether uniforms affect student discipline. The researchers found that the highest-performing students are the most disciplined. In addition, “for countries where students wear school uniforms, our study found that students listen significantly better, there are lower noise levels, and lower teaching waiting times with classes starting on time.”

“Dressed for Success? The Effect of School Uniforms on Student Achievement and Behavior” Gentile, Elizabetta; Imberman, Scott A. Journal of Urban Economics , 2012, Vol. 71. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.002.

Abstract: “Uniform use in public schools is rising, but we know little about how they affect students. Using a unique dataset from a large urban school district in the southwest United States, we assess how uniforms affect behavior, achievement and other outcomes. Each school in the district determines adoption independently, providing variation over schools and time. By including student and school fixed-effects we find evidence that uniform adoption improves attendance in secondary grades, while in elementary schools they generate large increases in teacher retention.”

“Uniforms in the Middle School: Student Opinions, Discipline Data, and School Police Data” Sanchez, Jafeth E.; Yoxsimer, Andrew; Hill, George C. Journal of School Violence , 2012. DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.706873.

Summary: Researchers asked students at an urban middle school in Nevada what they thought of having to wear uniforms. Their public school had adopted a uniform policy after staff members became frustrated with the earlier dress code policy, which resulted in girls wearing revealing clothing and boys wearing shirts with inappropriate messages and images. The study’s main takeaway: The vast majority of students said they dislike uniforms, although some agreed there were benefits. “For example, in reference to gender, more than expected females than males indicated students treated them better with uniforms. Also, fewer females than males got detention for not wearing a uniform or for wearing a uniform inappropriately.”

“Are School Uniforms a Good Fit? Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS” Yeung, Ryan. Educational Policy , 2009, Vol. 23. doi: 10.1177/0895904808330170.

Abstract: “One of the most common proposals put forth for reform of the American system of education is to require school uniforms. Proponents argue that uniforms can make schools safer and also improve school attendance and increase student achievement. Opponents contend that uniforms have not been proven to work and may be an infringement on the freedom of speech of young people. Within an econometric framework, this study examines the effect of school uniforms on student achievement. It tackles methodological challenges through the use of a value-added functional form and the use of multiple data sets. The results do not suggest any significant association between school uniform policies and achievement. Although the results do not definitely support or reject either side of the uniform argument, they do strongly intimate that uniforms are not the solution to all of American education’s ills.”

“Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement” Brunsma, David L.; Rockquemore, Kerry A. The Journal of Educational Research , 1998, Vol. 92. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597575.

Abstract: “Mandatory uniform policies have been the focus of recent discourse on public school reform. Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specific behavioral and academic outcomes. Tenth-grade data from The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 was used to test empirically the claims made by uniform advocates. The findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, or attendance. Contrary to current discourse, the authors found a negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement. Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environment and student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement and reform.”

“School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research” Bodine, Ann. The Journal of Educational Research , 2003, Vol. 97. doi: 10.1080/00220670309597509.

Abstract: “School uniforms are being advocated for a range of social, educational, economic, and familial reasons. In 1998, The Journal of Educational Research (The JER) published an article by D. Brunsma and K. Rockquemore that claims that uniforms correlate negatively with academic achievement, but data presented in this article actually show positive correlation between uniforms and achievement for the total sample, and for all but 1 school sector. Examination of structure of argument reveals that the erroneous claim results from misleading use of sector analysis. Simultaneous with The JER article, and on the basis of the same National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988 database, an Educational Testing Service article reported that no correlation exists between uniforms and achievement. The two articles are contrasted in this study. The effect of new communication technology in amplifying political uses of academic research is discussed.”

“Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions” Wade, Kathleen Kiley; Stafford, Mary E. Education and Urban Society , 2003, Vol. 35. doi: 10.1177/0013124503255002.

Abstract: “This study attempts to clarify the relationships between public school uniforms and some of their intended results: student self-worth and student and staff perceptions of gang presence and school climate. The instruments used in the study included a questionnaire on gang presence and identity, the National Association of School Principals Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments, and the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children. Participants consisted of 415 urban public middle school students and 83 teachers. Findings indicate that, although perceptions did not vary for students across uniform policy, teachers from schools with uniform policies perceived lower levels of gang presence. Although the effect size was small, students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies. Student and teacher perceptions of school climate did not vary across uniform policy.”

“The Effect of Uniforms on Nonuniform Apparel Expenditures” Norum, Pamela S.; Weagley, Robert O.; Norton, Marjorie J. Family & Consumer Sciences , 1998. doi: 10.1177/1077727X980263001.

Abstract: “The uniform industry has grown steadily the past 20 years with increased attention from employers trying to create a professional image among workers as well as school administrators considering uniforms to curtail school violence. Although an important part of human dress for centuries, uniforms have received little attention from researchers of the clothing market. This study examines the impact of uniform purchases on household expenditures for selected nonuniform apparel subcategories based on an economic model of conditional demand. Expenditure equations are estimated using the 1990-1991 Consumer Expenditure Survey. The results suggest that, on average, consumers do not substitute uniforms for other apparel purchases. Rather, uniforms and nonuniform apparel appear to be complements in consumers’ purchases, resulting in greater household expenditures on nonuniform apparel. These results are a first step in understanding the economic effect that uniform purchases, mandated by employers, schools, or others, have on household clothing expenditures.”

Looking for more research on student achievement? Check out our write-ups on how teacher salaries , school vouchers and school shootings impact learning.   

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Do uniforms make schools better?

by: Marian Wilde | Updated: March 1, 2024

Print article

Schools, parents, and students frequently clash over the issue of regulating what students may and may not wear to school. These controversies often pegged to the culture war of the moment touch on everything from gender and sexuality to politics, race, and religion. In 2021, a group of about 50 students in Georgia protested their middle school’s dress code for being discriminatory against BIPOC girls by wearing t-shirts every Friday emblazoned with the words “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist.” In 2022, a fight between students, staff, and police officers broke out at a Pennsylvania high school when hats and hoodies were banned as part of a revision by the school board to the school’s dress code. And in 2023, two Michigan middle schoolers, via their mother, sued their school district after they were banned from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts.

Are school uniforms the best solution to this contentious debate? If every student is wearing the same outfit, will a host of campus problems be solved? Researchers are divided over how much of an impact — if any — dress policies have on student learning. There are multiple studies with conflicting conclusions, plus books such as 2018’s The Debate About School Uniforms , but the argument wears on, with a list of pros and cons on each side.

Why do some public schools have uniforms?

In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to adopt a school uniform policy.

President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996 State of the Union speech, “If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

The pros and cons of school uniforms

According to proponents, school uniforms:.

• Help prevent gangs from forming on campus

• Encourage discipline

• Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes

• Help identify intruders in the school

• Diminish economic and social barriers between students

• Increase a sense of belonging and school pride

• Improve attendance

Opponents contend that school uniforms:

• Violate a student’s right to freedom of expression

• Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence

• Make students a target for bullies from other schools

• Are a financial burden for poor families

• Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education

• Are difficult to enforce in public schools

Uniforms vs. dress codes

Schools and districts vary widely in how closely they adhere to the concept of uniformity.

What’s a dress code?

Generally, dress codes are more relaxed than uniform policies. Sometimes, however, dress codes are quite strict with requirements that are potentially viewed as biased based on race or gender. In 2020, two Black male students in Texas, cousins with West Indian heritage, were suspended for wearing dreadlocks in supposed violation of the district’s hair and grooming policy, part of the dress code. The elder one, a senior, was told he couldn’t attend prom or graduation until his dreads were trimmed. In 2022, girls on the track team at an Albany, NY high school were sent home for wearing sports bras at practice.

Uniforms are certainly easier for administrators to enforce than dress codes, largely because the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) can be depended upon to protect a student’s “right to express themselves.” The ACLU believes dress codes are often used to, “shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes… punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination… Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights…” To successfully enforce a dress code, insists the ACLU, the school must prove the student’s attire, “is disruptive to school activities.”

The ACLU’s dress code stance is regularly supported by federal courts , like the 2023 lower court ruling in North Carolina that ended a charter school decree that girls couldn’t wear pants to school. ACLU lawyers claimed this violated Title IX because the dress code “discriminated against female students by limiting their ability to fully participate in school activities, such as using the playground.” The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up a case challenging the lower court’s ruling.

Check with your school to see what the dress code is, as they can be fairly specific. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, the dress code prohibits :

• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms that convey crude, vulgar, profane, violent, death-oriented, gang-related, sexually explicit, or sexually suggestive messages.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms advertising tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms identifying a student as a member of a secret or overtly antisocial group or gang or that identifies a student as a member of an organization that professes violence or hatred toward one’s fellow man.
• Visible and permanent tattoos/brands incompatible with the standards set forth herein shall be covered to prohibit their display.
• Excessively large or baggy clothes

What’s a uniform?

School uniforms worldwide can widely range from nondescript to bizarre. (Extreme examples from China, Australia, and the UK on this YouTube video ) Most public school outfits in the USA are quite casual, with a “ common type ” for boys often a polo shirt in a solid color, with pants in khaki, black, or navy blue. A girl’s uniform is often a skirt and a white buttoned-up shirt. Dress shoes are frequently required for both genders.

In the United States, low-income families spend an average of $249 on a child’s school uniform annually, far less than the typical Australian student’s $578. But still, the cost is sometimes viewed as unfair because public education is intended to be free, paid by tax dollars, not “a stress for families on lower incomes.” The ACLU believes that public schools should provide free school uniforms , because the expense is unconstitutional, and it increases wealth inequity.

What research says about school uniforms

In 2006, Virginia Draa, professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed the impact of school uniforms at 64 public high schools that had larger percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students than other urban schools. Her conclusion surprised her: “I really went into this thinking uniforms don’t make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do… I was absolutely floored.” Her analysis determined that the schools with uniforms improved their students attendance, and graduation rates rose an average almost 11 percent.

In 2022, Ohio State University and University of Pennsylvania researchers reached a contrary opinion in their report titled “ School Uniforms and Students Behavior: Is There a Link? ” Their view was that, in general, evidence that school uniforms improve social skills in the students was “inconclusive.” The solitary praise they provided to uniform-wearing was noting there was “some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.”

What to believe? Jury is still out.

What do students think about uniforms?

A student discussion: pros and cons of uniforms

Editor’s note: This video is part of our high school milestones series about communication skills. The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms.

A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school . Only 30 percent believed the uniforms “might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped them focus at school, 34 percent believed their school was safer due to the uniforms and 37 percent said, “I worry less about my appearance” due to the uniform requirement.”

An earlier study, also in Nevada, displayed similar unpopularity with newly instituted uniforms among middle school students. However, when the researchers looked into school discipline and local police records and compared them to the prior year’s data, discipline referrals were down 10 percent, there were 63 percent fewer police log reports, and incidences of graffiti, fights, and gang-related activity were all down.

It’s a big issue

A new trend is the mounting pressure to establish dress codes for teachers. Apparently, the same casual mindset toward revealing outfits is cropping up in the ranks of our teachers.

The debate over uniforms in public schools encompasses many larger issues than simply what children should wear to school. It touches on issues of school improvement, freedom of expression, and hot-button culture wars. It’s no wonder the debate rages on.

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

SCHOOL UNIFORMS AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR: IS THERE A LINK?

Arya ansari.

a Department of Human Sciences, College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

b Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University

Michael Shepard

Michael a. gottfried.

c Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania

Arya Ansari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Funding acquisition. Michael Shepard: Writing - original draft. Michael Gottfried: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition.

Whether or not schoolchildren exhibit better behavior in the context of wearing uniforms has been a long-standing area of debate in education. Nonetheless, there has been little empirical inquiry into the benefits or drawbacks of school uniform policies. To contribute new insights to the dialogue, the present investigation used nationally representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 2011 ( n = 6,320) to examine students’ social-behavioral and engagement outcomes across the elementary school years as a function of school uniform policies. In general, students in schools that required school uniforms did not demonstrate better social skills, internalizing and externalizing behavior, or school attendance as compared with students in schools without school uniforms. These associations were true across both public and private schools. There was, however, some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.

Mandatory school uniform policies were first put in place nearly 30 years ago ( Brown, 1998 ), with increased implementation from the 1990s onward ( Han, 2010 ). In the 1995–1996 school year, only 3% of public schools in the U.S. required uniforms, which increased to 20% in 2011–2012 ( Mitchell, 1996 ; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ). School uniforms mandates are even greater in private schools, with roughly six out of every ten requiring that students wear uniforms (57% in 2011–2012; National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 ). This growth in school uniforms (particularly in the public elementary school sector; 20% in elementary school versus 12% in secondary school) has been attributed to the belief that uniform policies level the playing field in schools and help improve students’ academic achievement and social-behavioral engagement ( Brown, 1998 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Ryan & Ryan, 1998 ; U.S. Department of Education, 1996 ) along with student and classroom safety ( Kaiser, 1985 ; Zernike, 2002 ). Reflecting these beliefs, both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations encouraged widespread adoption of school uniforms ( Boutelle, 2008 ; Zernike, 2002 ).

Notwithstanding these proposed benefits and encouragement to adopt school uniform policies, there are many opponents. Anti-uniform groups argue that mandatory uniforms violate First Amendment rights of students and can lead to an authoritarian learning atmosphere that inhibits learning ( Brown, 1998 ). More broadly, critics argue that student achievement, behavior, and self-esteem will decrease rather than increase ( Brunsma, 2006 ) and that classroom stratification will not only remain, but uniforms could add further financial hardship on low-income families who now must purchase required clothing ( Brunsma, 2006 ; Portner, 1996 ). In general, opponents argue that uniform policies may only serve as a stop-gap policy in addressing issues of economic and educational equality that, ultimately, allows policy makers and practitioners to delay making difficult decisions to reform public education ( DeMitchell, 2006 ).

Despite these ongoing debates, there has been little empirical inquiry into the benefits or drawbacks of school uniforms, and the studies that do exist are limited, dated, and largely focus on academic outcomes ( Bodine, 2003 ; Brunsma, 2004 ; Brunsma, 2006 ; Holloman et al., 1998; Kohn, 1998 ; Murray, 1997 ; Pate, 1999 ; Yeung, 2009 ). This is a glaring gap in knowledge because students’ social-behavioral skills, especially in the earliest years of school, are critical in determining their future social, educational, and economic success ( Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001 ; Heckman et al., 2006 ; Imberman, 2011 ; Jacob, 2002 ; Segal, 2008 ). These findings, combined with the growth in uniform policies across the U.S., necessitate further empirical work to understand whether learning in the context of school uniforms is linked to differential measures of student success. Accordingly, the present study uses nationally representative data to explore whether: (a) elementary school-aged students across the United States demonstrated higher social-behavioral functioning and engagement in schools with uniform policies as compared with students in schools without uniform policies and (b) these associations vary across key subgroups of students. In doing so, the present investigation represents one of the first national snapshots of the outcomes of school uniforms in elementary schools.

The Purpose of Uniforms

School uniforms historically have been used in a variety of circumstances (e.g., military personnel, medical professionals, athletic teams) to signify to both wearers and observers of their expected roles. It has been argued that uniforms serve dual purposes: (a) to differentiate nonmembers from members and (b) to signal to the actor and the audience that certain set of behaviors are expected ( Joseph, 1986 ). Uniforms symbolize group membership and can define group boundaries, promote group goals, and reduce role conflict ( Stanley, 1996 ). They may also promote conformity to group norms, which may reduce group infighting and discrimination ( Huss, 2007 ). Thus, administrators and policy makers have viewed uniforms as a means of altering the climate of a school in cases of violence, disruptive behaviors, or social stratification.

Enacting school uniform policies can be viewed from theoretical persepctives that higlight the role of the environments that students interact with as a key influence on their development. For example, according to Social Learning Theory, individuals are argued to respond to a combination of: (a) cognitive factors, such as knowledge, expectations, and attitudes; (b) behavioral factors, such as skills, practice, and self-efficacy; and (c) environmental factors, such as social norms, access in community, and influence on others (Grusec, 1994). These cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors are hypothesized to interact with each other in a process known as reciprocal determinism (Grusec, 1994). Thus, theoretically, it is argued that school uniforms may change the school environment, resulting in a shift in the reciprocal determinism equation that could improve the trajectory of the student body. Social learning theory also rests on the notion that individuals create meaning for things that they interact with both through their personal interactions and their interaction with others ( Huss, 2007 ). That is, individuals create meaning based off their own experience as well as through learning the expectations and meanings other people give to these same objects. Grounded in this perspective, many administrators and policy makers have equated school uniforms with private schools, which are perceived as secure, safe, and orderly places of learning ( Huss, 2007 ).

School Uniforms in Practice

One major consideration pro-school uniform groups cite is student safety. Past school uniform policies have been introduced as a way to equalize the school culture/setting to support students and reduce gang attire and activity, increase school safety, and decrease clothing theft ( Daugherty, 2002 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Stanley, 1996 ; Zernike, 2002 ). Thus, from risk-taking perspective, school uniforms are often viewed as a way of mitigating risks to vulnerable populations, including fear of intimidation and discrimination. But beyond safety considerations, school uniforms have other proposed benefits: Increased student discipline, increased respect for teachers, promotion of group spirit, higher academic standards maintained through uniformity, decreased strain on parental budgets, and a decrease in student’s concerns for social status through fashion ( Kaiser, 1985 ). These benefits may also increase academic achievement, as a third of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior disrupted their teaching ( Robers et al., 2012 ).

On the other hand, opponents of school uniforms argue that there is not enough empirical evidence to support its implementation and that students may seek out other ways to individuate themselves even in schools with uniforms, such as becoming disruptive in class or rebel against authority (Gentile & Imberman, 2011). In the limited research that does exist, there is some indication that uniforms may restrict students’ ability to express themselves, and thus, results in lower-levels of self-esteem ( Wade & Stafford, 2003 ). Accordingly, through seeking conformity in clothing, schools may actually be undermining efforts to understand and appreciate diversity in the student body ( Howe, 1996 ). Opponents of school uniforms also cite a variation of the Hawthorn effect that may account for any observed differences in student outcomes where uniforms are mandatory ( Posner, 1996 ). More specifically, it is argued that differences in student outcomes are caused by a change in the way adults perceive uniformed students and not the way in which students behave or learn. If this hypothesis is correct, then meaningful change may be brought about without mandating uniforms among the student body.

Empirical Evidence regarding School Uniforms

As noted above, despite the extensive public discourse surrounding the implementation of school uniforms in the United States, there has been limited research that has examined its effectiveness. However, the handful of studies that have examined the benefits of school uniforms, although dated, present inconclusive evidence. For example, evidence from two school districts in Florida utilizing a pre-post test design found that elementary school-aged students significantly improved their academic test scores in the year post-uniform implementation ( Pate, 1999 ). In contrast, with samples of elementary ( Brusnma, 2006 ) and high school students ( Brunsma & Rockquemore, 1998 ), other researchers have found that students in schools with uniform policies demonstrated lower levels of (or declines in) academic achievement as compared with students in schools without uniforms. And, yet, other studies have documented no consistent differences in students’ academic outcomes as a function of school uniform policies ( Draa, 2005 ; Stevenson & Chunn, 1991 ; Yeung, 2009 ).

Although still limited, the evidence for school uniforms is equally mixed when considering students’ non-academic outcomes. Studies ranging from elementary to high school from school districts in Ohio and Virginia and in the southwest U.S. reveal that school attendance was better in schools with uniforms than those without uniforms ( Draa, 2005 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Hoffler-Riddick & Lassiter, 1996 ) and that school uniform implementation resulted in a decline in disciplinary infractions and a higher sense of school belonging ( Han, 2010 ; Hoffler-Riddick & Lassiter, 1996 ; Pate, 2006 ; Peters, 1996 ). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ peer relations, engagement in violent behavior, and integrity have also been found to improve when uniforms were worn ( Huss, 2007 ; Wade & Stafford, 2003 ; Sanchez et al., 2012 ; Tucker, 1999 ). Other research, however, reveals largely null or negative associations between school uniforms and elementary and secondary school students’ attendance and social-behavior ( Brunsma & Rockquemore, 1998 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ).

The Present Study

When taken together, despite theoretical assertions and the policy rehteoric surronding school uniforms and their benefits for the student body, the extant literature has yielded inconclusive evidence. Thus, whether school uniforms help level the playing field in schooling, which is important for children from ethnically and economically diverse backgrounds, or whether uniforms amplify disparities and serve as obstacles to being in school is unclear. Accordingly, the present investigation sought to add to our knowledgebase by leveraging a contemporary and nationally representative sample of elementary school-aged students to evaluate whether K-5 students’ school behavior and engagement outcomes differ in schools with and without uniforms. As part of this effort, we also consider the extent to which any patterns vary for students across the income and skill distributions and across school sectors. Given the inconclusive evidence discussed above, we did not make directional hypotheses. But in addressing these research questions, we build upon the limited, dated understanding of whether school uniforms are associated with students’ social, behavioral, and engagement outcomes in the crucial early years of development.

Data for the present investigation were drawn from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K: 2011; Tourangeau et al., 2015 ). The ECLS-K is a nationally representative sample of students who were followed from kindergarten entry through the end of fifth grade. To ensure a nationally representative sample, the ECLS-K: 2011 first sampled within geographic regions, then public and private schools, and finally students were stratified by race/ethnicity. For our purposes, we used data from the surveys administered to parents, teachers, and school administrators. Given the nature of the data on school uniform policies (for more details, see below), we limited our sample to children who: (a) remained in the same schools between kindergarten and fifth grade and (b) had administrator reported data of school uniform policies from the kindergarten wave of data collection. This restriction resulted in a final sample of 6,320 students.

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all focal covariates, separated by school uniform policy and Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for all study outcomes.

Weighted descriptive statistics for focal covariates, stratified by schools with and without uniform policies

Weighted descriptive statistics for focal outcome variables.

Note . Estimates correspond to means and those in brackets correspond to standard deviations.

School uniforms.

During the spring of kindergarten, school administrators were given a survey that included a question about whether students were required to wear uniforms. Although similar questions were asked again in first and second grade, these surveys were: (a) only asked of administrators of students who switched to new schools (and only a handful of children changed between schools with and without uniforms) and (b) no uniform data were available for students who switched schools after second grade, hence our focus on students who remained in the same elementary schools between kindergarten and fifth grade. Accordingly, we used these reports from kindergarten to create a binary variable that indicated whether students attended elementary schools with or without a uniform policy.

Student outcomes.

In the fall and spring of kindergarten and again in the spring of each subsequent grade, teachers reported on students’ socio-emotional skills. These questions were derived from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990 ). This tool is based a 4-point scale (0 = never to 3 = very often ) that includes four subscales: Interpersonal skills (5 items; α = .86–.87), self-control (4 items; α =.80–.82), internalizing behavior problems (4 items; α = .76–.79), and externalizing behavior problems (5 items; α = .86–89). Teachers also reported on students’ approaches to learning with a measure developed by NCES (6 items; α = .91–.92). Similar to Claessens and colleagues (2009), we collapsed these indicators into three dimensions: Internalizing behavior problems , externalizing behavior problems , and social skills (a combination of approaches to learning and socioemotional skills).

In addition to children’s socio-emotional development, students’ teachers also reported on students’ school absences every year (0 = no absences , 1= 1–4 absences , 2 = 5–7 absences , 3 = 8–10 absences , 4 = 11–19 absences , and 5 = 20 or more absences ). To increase interpretability, we recoded the scale values to equal the midpoint of the response options (e.g., 1–4 absences was recoded as 2.5 absences). Students who were never absent (scale value of 0) and those who were absent for 20 or more days of the school year (scale value of 5) were coded as being absent for 0 and 20 days, respectively. Note that, during kindergarten through third grade, children had one primary teacher across subject areas who reported on children’s school attendance. In fourth and fifth grade, however, students had different teachers for different subject areas. In these grades, both students’ English language arts teacher and their science or math teacher responded to questions of absenteeism. Because the correlations of absenteeism across subject areas were high, we created a composite of fourth, and then, fifth grade absences.

Analysis Plan

All analyses were estimated within Stata ( StataCorp, 2009 ). These models included robust standard errors to safeguard against violations of normality and missing data were accounted for with 50 imputed datasets using chained equations. All models were also weighted to be nationally representative and error term were clustered at the school level. To minimize the possibility of spurious associations, all models controlled for a large number of child and family covariates. These indicators capture children’s characteristics (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, English language learner status, and an indicator for whether a parent rated the child as having poor health), children’s educational experiences (i.e., enrollment in full-day kindergarten, school type, and the number of hours that the child spent in center-based prekindergarten and before/after school care during the kindergarten year), household characteristics (i.e., household structure, number of siblings, poverty status, parent education, parent employment, number of books in the home, home learning activities), and school-going practices and routines (i.e., whether the child took a school bus to school, how far the child lived from school, in miles, number of breakfasts and dinners that the family regularly had together at home). In addition, all models (except for models predicting absenteeism) adjusted for lagged dependent variables from kindergarten entry. Given the large number of outcomes, we also make a p -value adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini adjustment (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

With the above analytic framework in mind, we employed several different methodological specifications to determine whether students demonstrated different outcomes based on school uniform policies. Our first model was based within an OLS regression framework. Importantly, the above is after taking into account a student’s own school entry skills and the control measures. Thus, our first set of analyses considered whether, conditional on covariates, students in schools with uniforms demonstrated greater improvements in outcomes between kindergarten and fifth grade as compared with students who attend schools without uniforms. Notwithstanding the rich control measures included in this study, it is important to note that schools with uniform policies may differ in other observed and unobserved ways, which would make it difficult to isolate the outcomes of school uniform policies from the effects of other factors. To limit this possibility, we estimated three additional models.

Our second specification addressed the possibility of variation at the state-level that may influence the associations between school uniform policies and student outcomes. We did so by implementing state-fixed effects for the full sample of children. Consequently, our state-fixed effects models hold constant all state-wide factors that were the same for students in schools with and without school uniform policies in the same state. Although state-fixed effects account for state-to-state variation, there may be variation at a more granular level in the implementation of school uniforms. Therefore, our third specification was based within a county fixed effects framework, which may be particularly important in a study of school uniform policies, as decisions about school uniforms can stem from county factors. Therefore, county fixed effects help to control for county-to-county variation that exists in school uniform policies and student outcomes. As before, both the state- and county-fixed effects models adjusted for lagged dependent variables and the full set of covariates discussed above.

Even though state- and county fixed effects account for observed and unobserved differences at key levels, and thus, increase confidence in the reported associations, there may be concerns about the overlap between schools with and without uniform policies. Accordingly, our fourth and final specification was based within a propensity score matching framework ( Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983 ). Although propensity scores do not change the causal identification strategy, this methodology does consider whether there is overlap in the unmatched sample and the functional form assumptions that are driving our findings. For our matching models, we used the nearest neighbor method (with up to four matches) with a caliper of .05, allowing a sufficient overlap between students in schools with and without school uniforms. Given this specification, we successfully matched approximately 65% of students (the number of matches varied across the 50 imputed datasets). Importantly, before matching, the average standardized mean difference between conditions was approximately 18% of a standard deviation, but after matching, the average standardized mean difference was roughly 3% of a standard deviation (see Table 1 ). Moreover, none of the covariates were significantly different across conditions after matching, suggesting that balance was successfully achieved (descriptives available from authors). Accordingly, regression models were re-estimated within these matched samples and included all covariates when predicting outcomes (doubly robust estimation; Funk et al., 2011 ).

Once the main effects of school uniforms were examined in these various ways, we then examined potential variation in the benefits of school uniforms as a function of child and school characteristics. Specifically, we examined variation in associations as a function of child socioeconomic status and initial skills, and as a function of the type of school children attended. It is important to note that, given the small number of private schools of different types, we collapsed our school type indicator into public versus private for our moderation analyses. To estimate heterogeneity in associations, we estimated a new set of regression models that included interaction terms between the focal indicator for school uniforms and the moderators of interest. Our focal moderation analyses were estimated with the full set of covariates.

We begin with a descriptive presentation of the types of schools that had school uniform policies along with the students who attended those schools. We then present our main effect analyses before we turn to a discussion of heterogeneity in outcomes and close with set of supplemental analyses. With that said, and as can be seen in Table 1 , roughly 28% of students across the U.S. attended schools that required a uniform. When looking across different types of schools, we find that 78% of Catholic schools that students attended had a uniform requirement as compared with only 54% of other religious schools and 43% of other private schools. And, among public school students, only 21% attended schools with a uniform policy. In terms of the student body, we find that schools with uniforms served a larger number of Black (20%) and Hispanic (40%) children and English Language Learners (27%) than schools without school uniforms (8–18%). In contrast, White children were more likely to be served in schools without uniforms (64% vs. 31%), whereas schools with uniform policies served a larger share of children from low-income families (52%) than schools without uniform policies (41%). Other descriptives stratified by schools with and without uniform policies are presented in Table 1 .

Students’ Behavior and School Uniforms

Having established the descriptive snapshot of the schools with school uniform policies along with the student body, we next examined whether students demonstrated different outcomes based on school uniform policies. Two overall patterns are evident in Table 3 with regard to the associations between school uniforms and children’s social skills, behavioral problems, and school absences. First, the associations between school uniforms and students’ outcomes were almost entirely null and the effect sizes across outcomes and grade levels were roughly 3% of a standard deviation. In fact, of the 24 associations estimated within our baseline model with an assortment of covariates, only one emerged as statistically significant and none were statistically significant with a Benjamini adjustment, leaving us with little confidence of a statistically-significant link between school uniforms and students’ outcomes. Second, the magnitude of the estimated associations derived from our baseline OLS model did not change substantially when we estimated models with state- and county fixed effects, nor when we implemented propensity scores (see Table 3 ). Taken together, there seems to be no meaningful differences in students’ social-behavioral and attendance outcomes between kindergarten and fifth grade as a function of school uniforms.

Results from models examining the outcomes of school uniforms between kindergarten and fifth grade.

Note. Coefficients in bold were statistically significant at p < .05 with a Benjamini false discovery adjustment. All estimates are weighted and account for the complex sampling design. Models include a full set of controls. All continuous predictors and outcomes have been standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 and, thus, coefficients can be interpreted as effect sizes. Estimates in brackets correspond to standard errors.

Heterogeneity in Student Outcomes

Having established the average associations between school uniforms and student outcomes, our next set of analyses examined heterogeneity in these associations as a function of children’s school entry skills, socioeconomic status, and the type of school students attended. In the main, there was no consistant evidence of variation in outcomes as a function of school type nor students’ baseline skills. There was, however, some indication that the links between school uniforms and absenteeism varied as a function of socio-economic status. More specifically, the attendance benefits of school uniforms were approximately 20% of a standard deviation larger for low-income students as compared with more affluent students. Accordingly, even though school uniforms had no links to attendance for higher-income students, in first ( p <.01), fourth ( p < .05), and fifth ( p < .05) grade, low-income students who attended schools with uniforms demonstrated fewer absences than those in schools without uniforms. And although not statistically significant, similar patterns emerged in second and third grade (ES = .10–.13)

Supplemental Analyses of Students’ Experiences in School

In addition to the kindergarten through fifth grade outcomes reported as part of our focal analyses, students also reported on their school belonging (14 items, α = .90; e.g., closeness with teachers and classmates), experiences of bullying (4 items, α = .81; e.g., teasing, name calling), and social anxiety (3 items, α = .88; worrying about what others think) in fifth grade, which are aspects of the school experience that have been at the center of school uniform debates (e.g., Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ; Howe, 1996 ; Huss, 2007 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Sanchez et al., 2012 ). Although all students reported on these additional items, these surveys were not administered to students in the earlier grades. But to highlight the other potential outcomes of school uniform mandates, we estimate supplemental models that consider the links between school uniforms and these self-reported outcomes, net of the covariates outlined above. But because these variables were not collected in kindergarten entry, these models did not include lagged controls.

As can be seen in Table 4 , results from our covariate adjusted models revealed that students in schools with uniform policies reported no differences in their social anxiety, and experiences with victimization, but they did report lower levels of school belonging (ES = 16% of a standard deviation, p < .001) as compared with students in schools without school uniforms. These findings largely replicated when accounting for state- and county-fixed effects along with propensity scores (see Table 4 ) and remained statistically significant with a Benjamini adjustment. And, as before, there was no evidence of heterogeneity.

Results from models examining the associations between school uniforms and students’ self-reported outcomes in fifth grade

School uniform policies have grown in the thirty years since their introduction in the United States, both in the public and private education sectors ( U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ). This growth has fostered debate among pro- and anti-uniform advocates ( Boutelle, 2008 ; Brown, 1998 ; Brunsma, 2006 ; DeMitchell, 2006 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Portner, 1996 ; Ryan & Ryan, 1998 ; Zernike, 2002 ). To date, however, these debates have been grounded in both limited and dated empirical evidence, especially in the formative elementary school years ( Bodine, 2003 ; Brunsma, 2004 , 2006 ; Draa, 2005 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ; Kohn, 1998 ; Murray, 1997 ; Pate, 1999 ; Yeung, 2009 ).

With that said, Social Learning Theory posits that individuals rely on a combination of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors to learn how to act in a given situation. This process, known as reciprocal determinism, has been raised by policymakers and adminstrators to suggest that school uniform policies have downstream effects on students because it influences the environment of school children and alters the complex reciprocal determinism equation (Grusec, 1994). Accordingly, the present study sought to add to this literature on the going to school in the context of school uniforms in elementary schools by bringing a longitudinal and national perspective to school uniforms and aspects of students’ development that are relatively understudied, but that are known to drive long-term educational and life success ( Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001 ; Heckman et al., 2006 ). In doing so, several key themes emerged.

First, the results of the present investigation illustrate consistent and largely null findings at the aggregate level as a function of school uniform policies. That is, students who attended schools with and without school uniform mandates, on average, demonstrated similar social skills, externalizing and internalizing problems, and school attendance patterns between kindergarten and fifth grade after adjusting for children’s characteristics and their educational experiences, household characteristics, and school-going practices and routines. Effect size were close to zero, suggesting no meaningful differences as a function of school uniform policies. Importantly, this pattern of largely null findings remained consistent even with the inclusion of state and county fixed effects that accounted for geographic variation as well as when propensity score matching was used. But when looking at students’ own self-reports of their engagement and well-being in fifth grade, we found that students in schools with uniforms reported lower levels of school belonging than students in schools that did not require uniforms.

When taken together, these null—and in some cases negative—findings are both similar to prior studies that have documented null or negative associations ( Brunsma & Rockquemore, 1998 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Han, 2010 ), but stand in contrast with other studies that show benefits of school uniforms for children’s socio-emotional development ( Huss, 2007 ; Wade & Stafford, 2003 ; Sanchez et al., 2012 ; Tucker, 1999 ). Although we can only speculate why these differences emerge between the current investigation and some of the extant literature, one must consider the fact that many of the prior studies done on school uniforms have been restricted to specific school districts (e.g., Draa, 2005 ; Gentile & Imberman, 2011; Hoffler-Riddick & Lassiter, 1996 ), whereas the current study presents a national perspective. But with regards to the Social Learning Theory perspective, there is no evidence to suggest school uniforms changed the environment of school children, at least with respect to their social behavior.

One might also wonder why there were largely null associations for broader indicators of social behavior (as reported on by teachers) as compared with negative associations for students’ own self-reports. Of most relevance is the fact that these benchmarks were different: Teachers reported on broader indicators of students’ social and behavioral adjustment, whereas students reported on more specific outcomes related to their school experiences. Thus, including indicators from both the teacher and student perspective presents a more well-rounded and balanced portrait of the outcomes of school uniform policies. But with respect to the lower levels of school belonging in schools with uniforms, one possibility worth considering is that students’ fashion choices are likely to be only one potential source of belonging. Accordingly, what these results make clear is that the argument that school uniforms create cohesion among students and give students a sense of identity is not true, at least in this study sample ( Brown, 1998 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Pate, 2006 ; Ryan & Ryan, 1998 ; U.S. Department of Education, 1996 ).

The second key theme that emerged from the present investigation was that the magnitude of associations between elementary schools with (versus without) a school uniform mandate and students’ social and behavioral problems did not consistently vary as a function of children’s socio-economic status nor their school entry skills. That is, school uniforms did not address issues of economic and educational equality that have been at the center of much of the pro-uniform debates and the very reason many school officials and school systems require students to wear uniforms ( DeMitchell, 2006 ). Just as importantly, even with the large differences in the rates of school uniform mandates between public and private schools ( National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 ), we documented no differences in the outcomes of school uniform policies and student outcomes across different school sectors. Put another way, the associations between school uniforms and students’ socio-emotional, behavioral, and engagement outcomes were comparable (and in most instances close to zero) in both public and private schools. Taken together, what the results suggest is that the outcomes of school uniforms are far more similar than different for students of different backgrounds and for students enrolled in different types of schools across the United States.

With that said, one of the only consistent patterns that did emerge (and the third and final key theme) was that low-income children demonstrated fewer absences between first and fifth grade in schools with uniforms as compared with low-income children in schools without uniforms. The above is noteworthy given that absenteeism is at its highest point in the early elementary school years ( Ansari & Pianta, 2019 ) and there is long-standing evidence to suggest that low-income children are doubly at risk: They are more likely to be absent from school (Morrissey et al., 2013) and they are more likely to experience reduced learning due to absences as compared with their more advantaged peers ( Gershenson et al., 2017 ). Given the above, there has been longstanding interest in identifying in which contexts school absences are lowest, particularly for groups of vulnerable children (e.g., Rogers & Feller, 2018 ; Robinson et al., 2018 ). Accordingly, what the results of the present study suggest, is that school uniforms may be one context in which low-income students have fewer instances of absences; with that said, the mechanism for reduced absenteeism was not feelings of school belonging.

Despite these contributions to the extant literature, the results of the present investigation should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First and foremost, students were not randomly assigned to attend schools with and without uniforms. Consequently, our findings should be interpreted with caution as there might be unobservable confounds. With that said, a correlation is necessary for a causal effect and what our findings underscore is that there is no correlational support, on average, for school uniform policies; and in a few instances, the associations that did emerge between school uniform policies and student outcomes were in the opposite direction (i.e., negative). Second, although the present study presents a national snapshot of the outcomes of school uniforms between kindergarten and fifth grade, what is missing is an examination of longer-term outcomes in secondary school and beyond. In other words, our study cannot determine the potential associations for student outcomes of interest for middle or high school students. Additional research is needed to better understand the associations between school uniform policies and student outcomes in the older grades and. Third, because administrators in the ECLS-K were not asked about school uniforms on a yearly basis, the present study could not consider within school changes in uniform policies. Likewise, very few students changed between schools with and without uniforms and, consequently, we also could not examine within child change (i.e., child fixed effects models). For the above reasons, we limited or sample to students who remained in the same school between kindergarten and fifth grade to reduce any bias that may stem from school mobility or other unknown confounds. The above is of note because it limits the generalizability of our findings. Finally, our study relied largely on teacher reports of children’s socio-emotional skills because information from other sources was not consistently available across the elementary grades. The above is of note because our benchmarks for children’s socio-emotional development are based on teachers’ perceptions and may be biased. With that said, it is important to keep in mind that: (a) there are few, if any, large-scale and nationally representative studies that have more objective measures of socio-emotional development and (b) as part of our supplemental analyses, we also examined students’ own reports of their ties to their schools.

With these limitations and future directions in mind, the results of the present investigation bring a contemporary and national perspective to the ongoing debates surrounding school uniforms. In the main, despite the argument that school uniforms have the potential to improve students’ social-behavioral and engagement outcomes ( Daugherty, 2002 ; Kaiser, 1985 ; Stanley, 1996 ; Zernike, 2002 ), and shifting the process of reciprocal determinism (Grusec, 1994), the findings from the present study suggest otherwise: There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that students in schools with uniform mandates demonstrated stronger social-behavioral and engagement outcomes than students in schools without such mandates, and there was little evidence of heterogeneity. In fact, when examining students’ own reports of their school experiences, those in schools that required uniforms demonstrated higher levels of victimization and lower-levels of school belonging. If replicated with different samples and methods in the future, what these results suggest is that school uniforms may not be the most effective way to improve students’ social, behavioral, and engagement outcomes.

Research Highlights

• We examine elementary-aged students’ social-behavioral and engagement outcomes as a function of school uniform policies.
• Students in schools that required school uniforms did not demonstrate better social behavior or school attendance than students in schools without school uniforms.
• Associations were true across both public and private schools, but low-income students in schools with school uniforms demonstrated better school attendance.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03 HD098420-02). Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

• Ansari A, & Pianta RC (2019). School absenteeism in the first decade of education and outcomes in adolescence . Journal of School Psychology , 76 , 48–61. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bodine A (2003). School uniforms, academic achievement, and uses of research . The Journal of Educational Research , 97 , 67–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boutelle M (2008). Uniforms: Are they a good fit? The Education Digest , 73 , 34–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown TJ (1998). Legal issues and the trend towards school uniforms.Eric Digets Ed 447 588 . Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447588.pdf
• Brunsma DL (2004). The school uniform movement and what it tells us about American education . Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunsma DL (2006). School uniform policies in public schools . Principal , 85 , 50–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunsma DL, & Rockquemore KA (1998). Effects of student uniforms on attendance, behavior problems, substance use, and academic achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 92 , 53–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeMitchell TA (2006). School uniforms: There is no free lunch . Teachers College Record . Retrieved from: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12891
• Daugherty RF (2002). Leadership in action: Piloting a school uniform program . Education , 123 , 390–393. [ Google Scholar ]
• Draa VAB (2005). School uniforms in urban public high schools.(Doctoral dissertation) . Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (No. ED497409)
• Funk MJ, Westreich D, Wiesen C, Stürmer T, Brookhart MA, & Davidian M (2011). Doubly robust estimation of causal effects . American Journal of Epidemiology , 173 , 761–767. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile E, & Imberman SA (2012). Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on student achievement and behavior . Journal of Urban Economics , 7 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gershenson S, Jacknowitz A, & Brannegan A (2017). Are student absences worth the worry in U.S. primary schools? Education Finance and Policy , 12 , 137–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gresham FM, & Elliott SN (1990). The social skills rating system . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han S (2010). A mandatory uniform policy in urban schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2003–04 . International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership , 5 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman JJ, & Rubinstein Y (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program . American Economic Review , 91 , 145–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman JJ, Stixrud J, & Urzua S (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior . Journal of Labor Economics , 24 ( 3 ), 411–482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffler-Riddick PY, & Lassiter KJ (1996). No more “Sag Baggin’“: School uniforms bring the focus back to instruction . Schools in the Middle , 5 , 27–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holloman LO, LaPoint V, Alleyne SI, Palmer RJ, & Sanders-Phillips K (1996). Dress-related behavioral problems and violence in the public school setting: Prevention, intervention, and policy: A holistic approach . Journal of Negro Education , 65 , 267–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe H (1996). School uniforms: Leaning toward the Spartans and away from the Athenians . Education Week , 15 , 36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huss JA (2007). The role of school uniforms in creating an academically motivating climate: Do uniforms influence teacher expectations? Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research , 1 , 31–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Imberman SA (2011). Achievement and behavior in charter schools: Drawing a more complete picture . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 93 , 416–435. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacob BA (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education . Economics of Education Review , 21 , 589–598. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph N, & Houston G (1986). Uniforms and Nonuniforms: Communication through Clothing . New York: Greenwood. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser SB (1985). Social Psychology of Clothing and Personal Adornment . New York: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn A (1998). What to look for in a classroom . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell A (1996). Clinton will advise schools on uniforms . New York Times , 24 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrissey TW, Hutchison L, & Winsler A (2014). Family income, school attendance, and academic achievement in elementary school . Developmental Psychology , 50 ( 3 ), 741–753. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray RK (1997). The impact of school uniforms on school climate . Nassp Bulletin , 81 , 106–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2013. (2013). Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_233.50.asp
• Pate SS (1999). The influence of a mandatory school uniform policy . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Career and Technical Education, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458695.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Pate SS (2006). The Influence of a Mandatory School Uniform Policy in a Rural and an Urban School District. In Brunsma DL (Ed.). Uniforms in Public Schools: A Decade of Research and Debate , 3–11. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters KC (1996). Can uniforms improve school climate? Thrust for Educational Leadership , 25 , 36–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Portner J (1996). Uniforms get credit for decrease in discipline problems . Education Week .
• Posner M (1996). Perception versus reality: School uniforms and the “Halo Effect” . The Harvard Education Letter , 12 , 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robers S, Zhang J, & Truman J (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011. NCES 2012–002/NCJ 236021 . National Center for Education Statistics .
• Robinson CD, Lee MG, Dearing E, & Rogers T (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs . American Educational Research Journal , 55 , 1163–1192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers T, & Feller A (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents’ misbeliefs . Nature Human Behaviour , 2 , 335–342. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenbaum PR, & Rubin DB (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects . Biometrika , 70 , 41–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan RP, & Ryan TE (1998). School uniforms: Esprit de corps . School Community Journal , 8 , 81–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanchez JE, Yoxsimer A, & Hill GC (2012). Uniforms in the middle school: Student opinions, discipline data, and school police data . Journal of School Violence , 11 , 345–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Segal C (2008). Classroom behavior . Journal of Human Resources , 43 ( 4 ), 783–814. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley MS (1996). School uniforms and safety . Education and Urban Society , 28 , 424–435. [ Google Scholar ]
• StataCorp. (2009). Stata User’s Guide, Release 11 .College Station, TX: Stata Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevenson Z Jr, & Chunn EW (1991). Uniform policy/dress codes: School staff and parent perceptions of need and impact . Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reporduction Servuce No. ED 331 933). [ Google Scholar ]
• Tourangeau K, Nord C, Lê T, Sorongon AG, Hagedorn MC, Daly P, & Najarian M (2015). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K: 2011). User’s Manual for the ECLS-K: 2011 Kindergarten Data File and Electronic Codebook, Public Version. NCES 2015–074 . National Center for Education Statistics .
• Tucker WH (1999). How student uniforms impact teacher perceptions of climate in urban public middle schools .
• U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Manual on School Uniforms . Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2018 (NCES 2019–047), Indicator 19 .
• Wade KK, & Stafford ME (2003). Public school uniforms: Effect on perceptions of gang presence, school climate, and student self-perceptions . Education and Urban Society , 35 , 399–420. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeung R (2009). Are school uniforms a good fit? Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS . Educational Policy , 23 , 847–874. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zernike K (2002). With student cheating on the rise, more colleges are turning to honor codes . New York Times , 2 . [ Google Scholar ]

Nevada Today

College of education researchers conduct study on impacts of school uniforms, student opinions, discipline referrals and school police data studied.

University of Nevada, Reno College of Education researcher Jafeth Sanchez studied student opinions and effects of school uniforms in three Washoe County School District middle schools in northern Nevada with colleague Gus Hill.

Research on school uniforms is minimal, especially research on students' opinions about uniforms, and the use of student uniforms is a growing conversation across the country. Two researchers from the University of Nevada, Reno College of Education studied opinions of students in three middle schools in the Washoe County School District in northern Nevada during the first-year implementation of a uniform policy at the schools. Although 90 percent of the students indicated they did not like wearing uniforms, various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, ease of going to school, confidence and self-esteem.

Jafeth Sanchez, research assistant professor, and George "Gus" Hill, associate professor, designed a 49-question survey to which approximately 1,350 students responded during the schools' first year of implementing a uniform policy. The students were seventh- and eighth-graders at Vaughn and Pine Middle Schools in Reno and at Sparks Middle School in Sparks.

They also examined data on discipline referrals and school police reports before and after the uniform policy was put in place at one of the schools. Females perceived or experienced more benefits than males. Based on grade level, more seventh-graders than eighth-graders reported agreement with statements about the benefits of wearing school uniforms. Results also revealed that Latino students perceived more benefits from uniforms than Caucasian students perceived.

Students' top-rated statements with responses of "Agree" and "Strongly Agree" were: I still have my identity when I wear a uniform (54 percent); My family likes that I wear a uniform to school (53 percent); I think uniforms save money on clothes (50 percent); I worry less about how others look (42 percent); and, There is less gang activity at school (41 percent).

At Sparks Middle School, discipline and school police records were also studied. Compared to the year prior, discipline referrals were reduced by about 10 percent the first year the uniform policy was implemented. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assists.

Since the uniform policy was implemented at Sparks Middle School in 2008-2009, and at the other two schools in 2009-2010, many other Washoe County School District middle schools have implemented a uniform policy, and the district is looking at the possibility of a comprehensive school uniform policy that will establish guidelines for schools interested in school uniforms.

"If a simple change in attire can positively influence more than 30 percent, or even 25 percent of a school's student population, then perhaps administrators, teachers, students and community members find it worth the effort," Sanchez said. "Essentially, students reported positive impacts by simply changing the clothes they wore to school, and comparatively, there wasn't much of a downside."

The researchers emphasized that the school uniform implementations were a collaborative and informative effort among school staff, district administrators and parents.

For more information about the school uniform study, contact Sanchez at 775-682-9078 or [email protected] , Or, see the article that focused on the Sparks Middle School study published in the Journal of School Violence published last fall, "Uniforms in the Middle School: Student opinions, Discipline Data, and School Police Data," co-authored by the two University researchers and Andrew Yoxsimer, principal at Sparks Middle School during the study who is now a Washoe County School District implementation specialist. ____________________________________________________________

Since it was published in April 2013, this story highlighting school-uniform research completed by University of Nevada, Reno College of Education faculty has received more than 60,000 unique page views on Nevada Today, the University's online news site. The story currently ranks number one on Google, Yahoo and Bing for the search term "school uniform study," resulting in a large number of regular inquiries to one of the study's researchers, Jafeth Sanchez, assistant professor of educational leadership. Below is a list of the most frequently asked questions Sanchez receives around the topic of school uniforms. People interested in accessing more data are also invited to review the complete study, " Uniforms in the Middle School: Student opinions, Discipline Data and School Police Data ," which is published in the Journal of School Violence . School Uniform Study FAQ What influenced you to write the paper? Uniform requirements often elicit strong reactions from parents, students, educators and scholars on both sides of the issue. Yet, research on current school uniform efforts is minimal, especially when considering students' opinions. The purpose of this study was to give students a voice and to find out if students actually benefit from school uniforms, as originally intended by the school's leadership team and others involved in the policy implementation process. What do students think about school uniforms? If you ask students if they like to wear a uniform, 99 percent of them will say no. If you have them reflect on specific, possible benefits, their answers tend to change. Considering all students' responses, there were many responses against wearing school uniforms, but a substantial number of students indicated benefits to wearing school uniforms. Are you for or against school uniforms? My personal opinion is that uniforms can be an effective tool for supporting a positive school climate and overall changes, but it will vary by school context. If uniforms are implemented, they need to be evaluated to identify the effectiveness of the policy. Uniforms are not a "silver bullet" solution to school improvement efforts. I believe it requires holistic change in many areas. Consequently, I am not for or against uniforms, but I am for assessing the policy implementation of uniforms. What is the correlation with academic grades? My data did not include academic ties, and the state testing framework was changed at the end of 2012, so the data cannot be linked. My data only collected student perceptions, so I can only address questions related to those findings. What are the benefits of school uniforms? The study found benefits between genders, grade levels and related to racial/ethnic groupings. The study was based on approximately 604 student responses out of 700 students at the school, with an 86 percent response rate. At the time, the school had approximately 64 percent of the students qualifying for free/reduced lunch. There were discipline effects examined. Exact numbers are included in the study, where I also note that 30 to 40 percent of the student population reported benefits, so it may be useful from a practical perspective. The year after initial data collection, two additional schools implemented uniforms, so I surveyed those schools' students, as well, totaling approximately 1,850 students. Findings were very similar to the original article's findings. Findings among the three schools were also almost identical. However, I have not formally published that data in a professional journal. From a practical perspective, if a simple change in attire can positively influence over 30 percent, or even 25 percent, of a school's student population, then perhaps administrators, teachers, students and community members interested in implementing a school uniform policy might believe it is worth the effort. It is essential to note that the school uniform implementation at the school studied was a collaborative and informative effort among school staff, district administrators and parents. The uniform initiative was not abruptly implemented. Do you think without more school uniforms there is more bullying? I can only speak to this based on my findings, rather than offer an opinion. In my research, students indicated that there was a reduction in the bullying that they specifically saw occur at their school. In their responses, it appeared that bullying decreased with uniforms. In addition, there were large reductions in school police reports, referrals, and other disciplinary aspects. Do school uniforms impose on a student's individual identity? There was a specific question in my study that asked students to respond in agreement or disagreement: "I still have my identity when I wear a uniform." The majority of students agreed and strongly agreed with this statement; consequently, most students reported that they still had their identity, which is a clear link to their freedom of expression. What have you seen result from schools mandating students wear uniforms? Three things: 1.     After school uniform implementation, there was a reduction in discipline. 2.     One-third of students reported benefits to wearing school uniforms. 3.     Results revealed that Hispanic/Latino students believed they attained more benefits from uniforms than White/Caucasian students. In reference to gender, more than expected females than males indicated specific benefits with wearing school uniforms. What was the biggest improvement you have seen in students who wear uniforms? While most students surveyed did not like wearing uniforms, 30 percent of the students believed that wearing uniforms might reduce discipline issues and reported various benefits that may seem worthwhile in enhancing students' quality of their school experience. 

Research & Innovation

Mountain chickadees have remarkable memories. A new study explains why

The spatial memory of mountain chickadees is influenced by genetics and may need to evolve with a changing climate

Grand opening of new School of Public Health building

Ribbon cutting ceremony marks the new home of the School of Public Health at the Edna S. Brigham Building

Ask the Professor: Which bees will my garden attract?

A recently published article outlines the relationship between bee nutrition and flower visits

University of Nevada, Reno researcher takes on fight against deadly cattle tick

Pioneering researcher wins highly competitive Fulbright U.S. Scholar Award for collaborative international research project

Editor's Picks

Remembering the Holocaust

Earth Month events focus on increasing campus sustainably, gardening, thrifting and more

Anthropology doctoral candidate places second in regional Three-Minute Thesis Competition

A look at careers of substance and impact

New textbook tailored to Electrical Engineering grad students and practicing engineers

Professor Sami Fadali publishes “Introduction to Random Signals, Estimation Theory, and Kalman Filtering”

A glimpse into Korea comes to the University campus

Korea Wave/The Korean Film and Food Festival to be held on May 2

Put the person first: M.D. student encourages others to pursue a career that aligns with their values

Spencer Joseph Horsley Trivitt, class of 2024, shares the importance of following one’s internal compass

Catalyzing carbon and plastic recycling

Energy Solutions Forum speaker Karen Goldberg spoke about the methods her lab is pursuing to recycle carbon and plastic

Grads of the Pack: Jada DeLeon

“I strongly believe that every child has the fundamental right to thrive in inclusive environments”

University of Nevada, Reno Extension appoints new state leader for Nevada 4-H

Lindsay Chichester to foster growth of the youth development group

The 2024 Cashman Good Government Award awarded to the University of Nevada, Reno Collegiate Academy program

Recognition of the program highlights its success in Nevada high schools.

New advanced degree option will help fulfill state’s need for registered dietitian nutritionists

University of Nevada, Reno develops mostly online program to accommodate busy schedules

Educ 300: Education Reform, Past and Present

an undergraduate course with Professor Jack Dougherty at Trinity College, Hartford CT

Controversy: The True Effectiveness of School Uniforms

In history, students were not always required to wear a school uniform. When the school system started, most students were only required for students clothing to be appropriate for the learning environment, meaning no sexual, gang-related, or distracting clothing. If students did have to wear a uniform, they did not attend a public school. For many years now, it has been an argument of whether or not school uniforms should be options or should be removed out of schools. Many advocates think that school uniforms allow students to stay safe in schools, reduce crimes, increase attendance, and improve students performance in the classroom. Many people who are opposed to school uniforms are saying by putting kids into school uniforms, we are allowing them to have limited ways to express themselves. Low-income parents are concerned with trying to pay for these uniforms that can be very pricey. Despite this, school officials and school boards believe that uniforms are golden. When and why did school uniforms become widespread in public schools, and did they deliver the results that advocates promised?

The school uniform movement began a lot of cases that were set on student were wearing. Then a local community school in Long Beach, California became what advocates looked like an example school; however, the movement became more popularized after Bill Clinton gave his State of the Union address in 1996. Advocates, school official and school boards, hope that by having school uniforms would decrease in distractions, leveled socioeconomic barriers, and less student worried or concerned that they do not have the best clothes. Over time, school officials saw the change in students; however, researchers do not see the same correlation across many school districts.  

In 1969, there was a supreme court case Tinker v Des Des Moines Independent Community School District. This case was a very important case for U.S school system. In this case, some students of the Des Moines school wanted to protest the Vietnam War, and they did this by wearing black armbands. The principal of the school learned about what was going to happen, and she required students to be removed from the schools if they are wearing the armbands. Students would also be suspended and would not be able to attend school until they agreed to not wear the armband. The Tinker family had a big issue with that because they felt that the school violated their first amendment right. They sued the school district saying that violation. The school simpled argued that they are violating school policies. According to Dress Code in Public Schools: Principals, Policies, and Precepts, “But, a closer look at Tinker may reveal less support for an expansive view of students’ rights to wear any clothing of his or her choice”( DeMitchell, Todd A.; Fossey, Richard; Cobb, Casey 35 ).  The Tinker case is how we see school officials dictating what students wear.  

There was a public school, Jackie Robinson Academy, in Long Beach, California that President Clinton recognized for wearing school uniforms. After leaving the school, he recalled a conversation that he had with his wife about school uniforms. He recalled her mentioning to him that school uniforms would make things better in school in terms of student behaviors. He made Jackie Robinson Academy the face for school uniforms in 1994. There begins to be a large wave of school districts in Long Beach that turns over to school uniforms being the solution to their problems, “uniforms [became] mandatory for all 58,500 students in its elementary and middle schools”(Mitchell “Clinton Will Advise Schools on Uniforms.” ). The school district found that by enforcing students wear polos and blue pants or plaid skirts decreased crime in schools by 36 percent. Many people argue that it takes away from children individuality. He defined advocates by stating 

“‘I think these uniforms do not stamp out individuality among our young people,” he said at the rally.”Instead, they slowly teach our young people one of life’s most important lessons: that what really counts is what you are and what you become on the inside, rather than what you are wearing on the outside’” (Mitchell).

In this, the President is recognizing the problems that are going on; however, he is making it clear that adding uniforms will make things easier and more practical for school boards.

By January 23, 1996, President Bill Clinton became the first president to mention anything about school uniforms in the United States State of the Union address. When talking about the state of our public school system, Clinton stated “I challenge all our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship. And 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 school uniforms” (Clinton “State of the Union Address”) It was surprising to having the president mention something like this during his address; however, it sparked up some conversation. The New York Times article talks about how the President stated that he believed incorporating school uniforms will better the community of the school, “ If it means that the schoolrooms will be more orderly, more disciplined,” Mr. Clinton said, “and that our young people will learn to evaluate themselves by what they are on the inside instead of what they’re wearing on the outside, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms” (Mitchell). Despite his ideas, he left it up to the school officials on that change.

In 1997 there was the case of an appeal, Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1 v. Green, that had parents stating that they did not agree with the previous ruling in March of 1995 that they would be enforcing school uniforms all over,

“Testimony was presented at trial that the uniform policy reduced clothing distractions, increased campus safety, improved school spirit, leveled socioeconomic barriers, ensured that students dressed appropriately, and reduced the staff and faculty time required to enforce the dress code. The court concluded that the dress code was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical purposes, including promoting a conducive learning environment and securing campus safety”(Geddis “School Uniforms Reduce Distractions, Aid Safety).

The statements that they address as improvements were also improvements that advocates wanted as well. The biggest improvement that they wanted to see decreased in distractions to promote academic achievement, leveled socioeconomic barriers, and less student worried or concerned that they do not have the best clothes. This is something that the researcher is looking into to see if there were actually any growth on any of these topics.

An Education Weekly article, “Uniform Effects?”, covered how the researcher, as well as school officials, felt about some of the pros and cons surrounding school uniforms. There are many different arguments that school officials at Stephen Decatur Middle School give about school uniforms; nonetheless, researchers dispute what the school officials are saying. David L. Brunsma is a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He spent time studying the effects of school uniforms in school using the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. He made sure to look at the effects that uniforms had on the whole school and the individual students. He found that about 27 percent of elementary school by 2000 had some type of school uniform rule. Majority of those school are in areas with minority or disadvantaged students, which are like the students in Stephen Decatur Middle School.

School Official verse The Researcher

The principal of Stephen Decatur Middle School, Rudolph Saunders, stated that the student tends to behave better when they have on a uniform,” ‘It’s like night and day,” Saunders says. “We have ‘dress down’ days, and the kids’ behavior is just completely different on those day” (Viadero “Uniform Effects?”). Although these school districts are convinced that uniforms have an impact on students’ discipline, Brunsma findings showed that “uniform policies don’t curb violence or behavioral problems in schools”(Viadero ).  In fact, his research shows how dermal having a uniform can actually be to students. The school is just based on what they are seeing without making sure this is really the cause. This is a factor of correlation does not imply causation. This is shown even clearer when Betty Mikesell-Bailey, “the school-improvement resource teacher at Decatur”(Viadero ), says that test scores have increased since the school required students to wear uniforms. However, Mikesell-Bailey could not prove how this was a correlation. Despite this, she still claimed that “[s]he’s fairly certain, though, that the policy has cut down on the teasing to which middle school children subject one another.” Brunsma made it clear that there was no correlation between uniforms and test scores. Brunsma further his argument by saying that uniforms do not “cultivate student self-esteem and motivation [or] balance the social-status differences”(Viadero). Uniforms actually cost a great deal of money, and kids can still bully other kids over the smallest thing, such as a hole in a shoe or even the type of pants they are wearing compared to others’. Brunsma argued that the uniform industry has been taken over by large clothing names like Land’ End Inc, which lead the school uniform industry since 1997, and French Toast, which Decatur middle school got their uniforms from. Students were clearly not a big fan of uniforms. They are arguing these uniforms can be uncomfortable and the have students lost individuality, “‘People can’t be who they are if they have to wear the same thing every day,’ says Alexis Richardson, who’s also in 7th grade”(Viadero). Despite this, school officials would say that uniforms help with being togetherness and recognizable to the school. Mikesell-Bailey stated that it was easier to recognize their students when they are outside, “‘When I see the uniform, I always stop, because I know it’s one of my children,” she says”(Viadero). Brunsma argues that the school should take into account the students’ point of view. He believes that if they looked into the history of uniforms, you can see how students would feel less than other kids without uniforms, “Some of his historical research suggests, for example, that school uniforms originated in England in the 16th century as a way to signal the lower-class status of some children”(Viadero).

They looked into a school with an optional school uniform policy in New Hampshire, the school, Highland-Goffe’s Falls Elementary School, stated that the few students that did not wear uniform, had a harder time being able to transfer the students into other schools where they could wear what they wanted, “We had seven very negative parents out of 454 families,” says Paul. “Those seven children never wore uniforms, which, from my point of view, kind of derailed us” (Viadero ). The school had to stop wearing school uniforms, even though it decreases the about of bully going on in the school. Brunsma was very unsure as to how these facts were even put out. He felt that the school district’s arguments were very problematic for two reasons. He felt that it was wrong for them to look at just one school district because some schools can be the outlier. Furthermore, he believed that the school failed to mention the dynamics changed that happened in this school, “Brunsma says newer case studies looking at uniform-adoption efforts in schools in Baltimore, Denver, and Aldine, Texas, a suburban Houston district—all of which also point to positive effects—have an additional shortcoming”(Viadero). These were some of the schools that he was able to look at in his research.

Overall, it could be said that school uniforms work for different schools. In some school, we see that school uniforms changed what advocates hoped that they would. In other schools, we don’t quite see the correlation. Because there is not a clear answer, researcher and advocates disagree on this topic all the time. The key ideas that they disagree on are uniforms are less costly for low-income households, uniforms promote academic achievement, and having uniforms does not hinder student views on themselves. We see these ideas being pushed at the forefront when President Clinton gave his address and school began to look into the effects it had on their school. Nonetheless, research like Brunsma looks across school districts. This big difference that has been shown here is how over time, who are school districts focused on and who researcher focused on.

Work Cited 

Clinton Bill “State of the Union Address.” National Archives and Records Administration , National Archives and Records Administration, 23 Jan. 19996, clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html.

DeMitchell, Todd A.; Fossey, Richard; Cobb, Casey. “Dress Codes in the Public Schools: Principals, Policies, and Precepts,” Journal of Law & Education vol. 29, no. 1 (January 2000): p. 31-50. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jle29&i=41 .

Geddis, Carol. “School Uniforms Reduce Distractions, Aid Safety – Education Week.” Education Week , https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/02/25letter-1.h24.html. Accessed 3 May 2019.

Mitchell, Alison. “Clinton Will Advise Schools on Uniforms.” The New York Times , 25 Feb. 1996  NYTimes.com , https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/25/us/clinton-will-advise-schools-on-uniforms.html.

“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.” Wikipedia , Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_Distrit.

Viadero, Debra. “Uniform Effects?” – Education Week.” Education Week , Jan. 2005. Education Week , https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/01/12/18uniform.h24.html.

Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens: Evidence about the Impacts of School Uniform on Education and Health

• Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

This study uses a public health lens to review evidence about the impacts of wearing a school uniform on students’ health and educational outcomes. It also reviews the underlying rationales for school uniform use, exploring historical reasons for uniform use, as well as how questions of equity, human rights, and the status of children as a vulnerable group are played out in debates over school uniforms. The literature identified indicates that uniforms have no direct impact on academic performance, yet directly impact physical and psychological health. Girls, ethnic and religious minorities, gender-diverse students and poorer students suffer harm disproportionately from poorly designed uniform policies and garments that do not suit their physical and socio-cultural needs. Paradoxically, for some students, uniform creates a barrier to education that it was originally instituted to remedy. The article shows that public health offers a new perspective on and contribution to debates and rationales for school uniform use. This review lays out the research landscape on school uniform and highlights areas for further research.

Despite regular judicial, community, and press scrutiny, there is little consensus on the function of school uniforms, or agreement about evidence of their impact on education and health. Breaches of school uniform policy have resulted in court cases (e.g., [ 1 , 2 ]), and courts note that in focusing on the rights and wrongs of a particular uniform policy, the underlying issues driving uniform design and policy are neglected [ 3 ]. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the school year in many English-speaking countries there are numerous press articles about the cost burden to families of providing school uniforms [ 4 – 8 ], whether they are value for money [ 9 – 11 ], and whether garment design is fit for modern life [ 12 – 17 ]. Discussion seems stymied in a superficial argument about whether school uniforms are good or bad. Rarely do discussions point to empirical evidence about school uniform garment design and policy about uniform use. This situation begs questions as to availability of evidence for school uniform use, its effects on educational or health outcomes, and the underlying rationales for school uniform use.

This article applies a public health lens to review evidence about why we have uniforms and what effects they have on educational and health outcomes. A public health perspective was chosen to review evidence because it is explicitly designed to analyze impacts of broad socio-political forces and determinants of health on individual experiences. Further, public health sees education and health as mutually reinforcing and intrinsically linked. The one determines the success of the other. Consequently, much public health policy aims to optimize wider social policy settings to improve health and education [ 18 ], and encourage equitable outcomes especially for the most vulnerable populations [ 19 ]. It is also why the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes health in all government policies to improve overall population health ([ 20 ]). Therefore, attention to students’ physical and psychosocial health and wellbeing is important for enhancing educational outcomes. This includes evidence for the choice of school uniform garments and individual schools’ policy about uniform and how these affect student wellbeing. The evidence considered here suggests that uniform is of public health concern because its use and effects are prevalent, have impact and are amenable to improvement. Uniform use is prevalent and widespread globally. In their study of 39 PISA countries, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] identify five main geographic/sociocultural groupings where uniform wearing is common: an Anglo-Saxon cluster (United Kingdom, NZ, Australia, United States), Asia, East Asia (South Korea, Japan), the Americas (e.g., Mexico), and Europe. These authors also note that uniform prevalence is increasing. Regarding impact, evidence shows uniforms can impact directly and indirectly on the individual and on society in equity, health and educational domains for better and for worse. The reviewed literature suggests that any harms are amenable to intervention via evidence-based action. Meadmore and Symes [ 22 ] argue that uniforms are not as frivolous as they appear and warrant systematic attention. This article applies that systematic attention through a public health lens. It explores three questions: What is the evidence for the impact of school uniform on students’ academic and health outcomes; what social, cultural and political rationales are made for uniform use; and what human rights may be affected by school uniform choice? For conciseness, “school uniform(s) garments” will be referred to as uniform(s). The practice of wearing/using/mandating a school uniform will be referred to as uniform policy.

Databases that include health and education research were searched for peer-reviewed articles in English using the key word “school uniform” in the title keywords or abstract. The date range searched was from 2000 to (present), being October 2020. The results are detailed in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Database searches October 2020.

Oft -cited peer-reviewed sources that did not appear in the literature searches were also included in the literature review ( n = 25), as well as texts that were found in the initial work for this review. Texts were de-duplicated, yielding 197 texts. Records were screened for relevance and excluded 79 for being out of scope because of time constraints (not in English, PhD theses, conference proceedings). This yielded 118 full text articles to be assessed, of which 26 were excluded because they were off-topic for this review (e.g., industry information about supply chains; school uniform as a basis for a thought experiment; fetishism; reports on forensics; technical information about fabric properties). 92 studies were included in this review.

Note this study examines the breadth of evidence for uniform wearing. Study quality was not part of the analysis.

Articles fell into three broad groups: surveys/studies that elicited stakeholder feedback on some aspect of garment design or policy; or experience of uniform wearing; analyses of large datasets or administrative data; and political, philosophical/ethnographic, and legal analyses of rationale and impact of uniform use.

The first group comprised empirical research that examined data on some aspect of garment design or policy or uniform wearing experience. There was a mixture purposive samples and convenience samples. Studies varied in the number of participants, the number of sites from which participants were taken. Studies elicited views from stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, administrators, social workers, school counselor. Views were gathered via survey and/or focus group. Some surveys formed part of a case study. There were also stand-alone case studies and ethnographies, an RCT and an auto-ethnography.

12 studies examined garment properties for Sun protection, safety, design. The mix of stakeholders varied: students only ( n = 15); students and family/parents/caregivers ( n = 8); multiple stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and administrators, and/or social workers) ( n = 17). There were three randomized control trials. There were a mixture purposive samples and convenience samples. Studies varied in the number of participants, the number of sites from which participants were taken. The second group comprised analyses of large datasets ( n = 5), and one meta analysis on factors affecting educational outcomes. The third group were non-empirical studies. They included: policy summaries; legal analyses; historical commentaries on uniform’s development; socio-political analyses; political think-pieces; and one economic analysis.

Here, evidence has been arranged according to a public health lens of analysis. First, this section examines the proximate educational and health impacts of uniform garments and uniform policy on students to determine whether there are immediate health or education impacts of uniform use or policy. Second, rationales for uniform use are examined, as well as distal factors that influence student experience. This section examines the broader institutional, and socio-cultural contexts which inform uniform use.

Part 1: Literature for Educational and Health Impacts of Uniform

Does uniform influence educational outcomes.

Starting with the evidence for the impact of uniform on educational outcomes (the core in Figure 1 ), there is little convincing evidence that uniform improves academic achievement. Studies from the United States in the early 2000’s [ 23 , 24 ] note a positive correlation between uniform wearing and academic achievement (e.g., Bodine [ 25 ]). Later, in 2012 Gentile and Ibermann found a positive effect on grades and retention [ 26 , 27 ]. Stockton et al. [ 28 ] noted there was a greater perception of increased attendance and achievement after uniform was introduced. However, studies of large datasets and meta-analyses fail to find a link between uniform and academic achievement. Brunsma and Rockquemore’s (2003) response to Bodine’s assessment of their administrative data review in the late 1990’s reiterated that no overwhelming link exists between uniform wearing and academic outcomes (there were methodological disagreements about which data to choose and how they should be analyzed). Later studies by Yeung [ 29 ] and Creasy and Corby [ 30 ] noted multiple factors for academic achievement—but not uniform. In a synthesis of 800 meta-analyses on effects of all hitherto published variables of educational outcomes, Hattie [ 31 ] demonstrated negligible to no association between uniform and academic achievement itself. However, he notes that the ‘heat and impact of the discussion are as if [uniform] were obviously effective’ (p106) [ 32 ]. In a 2017 update to that study uniform was not listed among the 252 effects on educational outcomes [ 33 ].

FIGURE 1 . Organization of evidence about uniform use.

Nonetheless, it appears that uniform may contribute to an environment that fosters academic achievement. Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] examined information from the PISA study on student experience of discipline within the classroom environment (listening, noise level, quietening/settling, schoolwork, starting work). This study involved a very large sample of students from across the globe. These researchers found a statistically significant difference related to settling to work between uniform wearing and non-uniform wearing samples. Thus, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] recommend keeping uniforms where already used and introducing them where not used. Similarly, Firmin et al. [ 34 ] found introducing uniform reduced distractions. Writing about the United States, DaCosta’s [ 35 ] study of students noted improved concentration and increased security in the school where uniform was introduced. A South African study reported that uniform helped to maintain classroom discipline [ 36 ].

However, settling to work and classroom discipline are two of many facilitators of learning outcomes [ 21 ], along with class size, funding levels, homework, and, importantly, factors related to the quality of the teacher (qualifications, personality, incentives, mentoring for new teachers). Given that teacher skill and relationship between student and teacher are established as influential factors on learning outcomes [ 33 ], some argue that expecting teachers to enforce school uniform rules detracts from teaching, learning, and good relationships [ 30 , 37 ], notwithstanding the classroom management benefits of uniform-wearing described by Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ]. Indeed, Da Costa [ 35 ] reports, the introduction of school uniform created opposition and non-compliance, distracting students and teachers from education. There are indications that uniform could create psychological barriers to education for vulnerable students, especially when it is a new phenomenon. Gromova and Hayrutdinova [ 38 ] found that for ethnic-minority newcomers to a school, uniform can simply be another strange element to get used to in a new environment.

One study argues that organisational and classroom management enhanced by uniforms may be achieved at the expense of other educational goals and values. Baumann and Kriskova’s [ 21 ] research ranks Korea and Japan highest in terms of settling to work and removing distractions. Yet Park’s [ 39 ] study found in Korea uniform was linked to stifling creativity, in spite of good academic performance. This is indicative only (a small study from one country), but highlights how much is not known about the impact of uniform on other domains of education.

Another effect of school uniform is that schools socialize students to certain explicit and implicit values and social norms and inculcate social skills that will help them get on in the world. Within that framework, school uniform provides what Vopat [ 40 ] describes as teachable moments (unplanned, yet important learning opportunities) to reflect on norms of society. There is no data that directly addresses non-academic learning outcomes from uniform. However, Vopat’s idea of teachable moments hints at why some administrators prefer a uniform [ 41 , 42 ], and a more formal one at that [ 41 ].

In some contexts, uniform is also instrumental to other goals: school security and students’ physical safety, aids student focus on learning. In South Africa, Wilken and van Aardt [ 36 ] observed that uniforms can make certain students targets of attack outside the school grounds. In South Africa and the United States uniforms are used to easily identify intruders on school premises and to reduce gang violence and theft of designer items outside of school [ 35 , 36 ]. However, in the United States one study found negligible evidence of uniform enhancing security [ 43 ], while another study found introducing uniform created only a lower perception of gang presence [ 44 ].

Overall, it appears that while uniform is a factor that removes distractions from classroom learning, thereby enhancing operational management, it has no direct impact on academic achievement and is not among factors that demonstrably improve educational outcomes. It may enhance school security, and influence schools’ broader educational and socialization goals.

Does Uniform Influence Health Outcomes?

Unlike for educational outcomes, there is a far more direct link between uniform garments and uniform policy and health outcomes. Health impacts can be divided into physical and psycho-social effects, though there is a significant overlap between the two. Physical impacts of school uniform relate to how uniforms facilitate physical activity during the day, whether uniform garments protect the wearer against known environmental hazards, whether the garments promote health and safety, and whether the garments are comfortable to wear. Psycho-social impacts are linked to fitting in (or not) with peers.

One effect uniforms have on physical wellbeing is their limitation or allowance of exercise. Encouraging regular physical activity is part of the WHO’s health promotion concept of health in all policies and settings. Globally, governments are trying increase physical activity among children and young people to reduce child obesity rates [ 45 ]. Additionally, physical activity enhances learning outcomes and improves wellbeing ([ 46 ]), therefore policies that promote planned and incidental physical activity positively influence educational and health outcomes. However, it appears that school uniform design and policy can pose a barrier to incidental exercise, particularly for girls. McCarthy et al. [ 47 ] found primary school girls were more active on sports uniform days and met government recommended daily physical activity levels on those days. Norrish et al.’s [ 48 ] study on the effect of uniform on incidental physical activity among ten-year-olds found that school uniform design could limit physical activity (measured by student self-report and pedometers). Correcting for choice of activity (ballgames, skipping vs imaginary play, verbal games), girls did significantly more activity during breaks on sports uniform days. Likewise, Watson et al. [ 49 ] and Stanley et al. [ 50 ] reported that recommended physical activity for school-aged children was not being met, especially for girls, where restrictive school uniform limited physical activity and created an explicit barrier to lunchtime play. Further, in an age of active transport policy, Hopkins et al. [ 51 ] found that school uniform style and lack of warmth was a barrier to cycling to school for some female secondary students, and Ward et al. [ 52 ] found both garment design and schools’ uniform policy hampered active transport among older teenagers. There are strong indications that uniform garments and policy about which garments can be worn directly impact on students’ physical health outcomes, for female students in particular.

While there is evidence on how uniform facilitates physical activity, there is little evidence on the psychological effects of uniforms on how students feel about doing physical activity in uniform. Unflattering or revealing (sports) uniforms may deter students from participating in sport. Focusing on physical activity, Watson’s et al.’s [ 49 ] study noted the complex social factors that affect physical activity, and how a unisex sport uniform could enhance the feeling of comfort and confidence. For instance, Pausé’s [ 53 ] auto-ethnography highlights the psychological barrier an unflattering sports uniform can pose to fat children’s participation in and enjoyment of physical activity as a good in itself (as opposed to a means to lose weight).

Physical health can be protected against known environmental health hazards by uniform garment design and policy implementation. However, school uniform policy (at national or school level) does not routinely address these hazards. In Australasia, ozone layer degradation results in high UV radiation levels in warmer months. Prolonged UV exposure results in skin damage and over the long term increased rates of moles and skin cancers across the population. Yet Gage et al. [ 54 ] found that uniformed schools had lower total body coverage than non-uniformed schools, albeit with greater neck coverage due to collared uniforms. This is despite evidence that hats with a brim and sun-safe clothing (covered arms and legs) can improve sun protection [ 55 ] while not increasing objective measures of body temperature [ 56 ]. Indeed, modeling from Australia indicates that slightly longer garments significantly alter mole patterns [ 57 ]. Of course the effectiveness of uniform garments (or indeed any garments) for sun protection depends on proper implementation of policy. For instance, in New Zealand Sunsmart is a voluntary school policy to optimize protection of children’s skin from sun damage and sunburn. However, Reeder et al. [ 58 ] found that Sunsmart policies were not consistently implemented, even among Sunsmart-accredited schools.

Uniform has also been used as part of measures to combat disease. In Thailand and other countries with endemic dengue, school uniform design, the use of insecticide-treated clothing [ 59 – 62 ], and how uniform is worn [ 63 ] have been investigated extensively in relation to dengue prevention, especially how to stop insecticide washing out of fabric. However, while the use of insecticide-treated clothing is supported by parents in these countries, willingness to pay for the uniform is linked to parental monthly income. Governmental willingness to subsidize treated uniforms is linked to overall cost, irrespective of effectiveness or potential health gain [ 64 , 65 ]. It appears that good garment design that protects against environmental hazards cannot be separated from good policy implementation and a financial subsidy if garment cost is high.

Interestingly, while environmental hazards and their impact on health were considered, no peer reviewed articles were found related to safe garment design e.g., Inflammable materials, removing strangling risks. The only information found on uniform policy and garment safety did not relate to garments but accessories (not uniform proper). It was from the United Kingdom, where the Health and Safety Executive found that schools had incorrectly applied health and safety legislation to ban certain non-uniform items of jewellery that had no link to causing physical harm [ 66 ].

Is it possible to achieve optimal uniform garment design? Researchers have examined different elements of uniform design, some related to health outcomes. There is a particularly interesting body of research emerging about properties of school uniform garments. Researchers have investigated how to standardize sizing [ 67 ], improve garment quality and durability [ 68 ], optimize materials, enhance style, include high visibility/reflectiveness for road safety, and ensure physical comfort irrespective of outside temperature [ 68 – 71 ]. This demonstrates that it is technically possible to design a uniform that meets cost imperatives, is physically safe, comfortable, and enjoyable to wear. These studies showed garment materials do not necessarily prioritize the wearer’s physical comfort. Functionality (durability, ease of care, ease of drying, stain and wrinkle resistance) is often preferred over comfort or safety (Kadolph, 2001 in 36). For example, polycotton is used instead of cotton because it is colourfast and fast-drying, despite not breathing well in hot weather.

It appears that no consensus exists on best practice for uniform design, who should be involved in design decisions, and considerations in policy development and implementation (e.g., health and educational impacts of garment design and policy, gender neutral options, non-physically restrictive garments). There is no data that discusses this point directly though some studies involve parents and students [ 68 , 71 ], and DaCosta [ 35 ] recommends involving students in co-designing the uniform, to develop a uniform that provides choice and flexibility. Gereluk proposes principles for a non-discriminatory environment [ 72 ], which provides helpful guidance on how to accommodate minority concerns into majority spaces. In doing so, he helpfully lists general elements to consider that can be applied to uniform design and policy. These are: health and safety; whether (any religious/cultural garment) is oppressive to (the wearer) or others; whether it significantly inhibits the educational aims of the school; whether (whatever item is not part of the uniform) is essential to one’s identity.

There is evidence that uniforms can be psychosocially protective of health. Uniforms remove “competitive dressing”—the pressure to wear certain (expensive) brands, colors, or styles [ 36 ]. Uniform removes most socio-economic signs of difference [ 73 ]. Wilken and van Aardt [ 36 ] and Jones (for higher socio economic status students) [ 74 ] report that school uniforms take away stress and family arguments about what to wear on school days. The positive psychological effect of removing competitive dressing probably only holds for students with a certain level of material wealth (see discussion below on equity of access to education and uniform cost). Thus, Catherine and Mulgalavi [ 75 ] found in Pakistan that school uniform had a positive effect on students’ self-esteem, particularly if they had the full and correct uniform. It seems for very poor students, school uniform requirements may simply become something else to worry about, but for others uniform removes a barrier to fitting in.

In addition to the ambivalence of wearers’ feelings, there are mixed data on the impact of uniform on bullying. In a study of one school in the United States, Sanchez et al. [ 76 ] found introduction of a uniform did not significantly change the school’s culture before and after a school uniform was introduced, though some females said males treated them better when they wore a uniform. Jones (United States) reported a reduction in bullying after uniform was introduced [ 74 ].

Indeed, Cunningham and Cunningham [ 77 ] note that while uniforms can reduce bullying, there will always be triggers such as girls choosing to wear trousers not skirts. Importantly, any dress is about more than clothing, indicating social relations, self-presentation, and formation in society, and is a sensitive topic in adolescence [ 78 ]. Indeed, Swain’s ethnography found that students who complied with uniform rules risked being socially excluded [ 79 ].

It appears that uniforms can be both protective and harmful, depending on context, how the student pushes the boundaries of uniform rules to fit in, and whether the student is part of a marginalised/socially disadvantaged group. Whatever the context, females are half of the population, and their physical and psycho-social health seems to be routinely and arbitrarily disadvantaged by uniform design.

Overall, in terms of health and education impacts it seems any psycho-social benefits will only hold if other psycho-social and physical harms to girls, and minorities are addressed. Table 2 summarizes the health and education impacts of uniform. From a health and education perspective, uniform’s biggest advantage is that it removes some distractions; it helps students to settle in the classroom and removes the worst of competitive dressing. If garments and policy are well designed, they encourage physical activity and can protect against environmental hazards. Nonetheless, poorly designed garments and uniform policies especially affect girls and minorities.

TABLE 2 . Uniform’s positive, neutral, and negative impacts on education and health outcomes.

Part 2: Exploring Social, Cultural and Political Rationales for Uniform Use

Since uniforms do not positively influence academic achievement and can have negative physical and psycho-social health impacts, what drives their use? Further, why are known problems in uniform policy and design not addressed? To answer these questions, it is important to consider the broader context in which uniform is used. The literature that addresses these questions can be divided into three groups. The first group examines the role of uniforms in institutions and the community; the second, the interaction between human rights and uniform; the third (dealt with in part 3 below) the relationship of uniforms to the idea of children as a vulnerable class of people who need special protection. Institutions, human rights laws and societal perceptions of children and childhood constitute important upstream/distal determinants of health and educational outcomes. All the above elements contribute to wider social settings that facilitate or prevent access to what people need to enjoy good health and education. Table 3 summarizes rationales for uniform use.

TABLE 3 . Implicit and explicit rationales for uniform use.

Uniforms as a Reflection of Schools and Communities

Schools are institutional extensions of overlapping communities: geographic, religious, or ethnic. Community norms reflect institutional and wider societal rules. Uniform signals internal culture to students and provides cues to outsiders about the school’s character.

Within schools, uniforms reinforce institutional culture, signaling school values to students [ 80 ], thereby identifying the wearer with objectives beyond the self. Along with school facilities and symbols [ 21 ], a well-disciplined body of students is associated with a certain type of dress. Additionally, some argue that uniforms contribute to a sense of affiliation in students, belonging [ 81 ], and pride in the school, especially after uniform has been recently introduced [ 82 ]. Affiliation is related to solidarity; yet there seems to be a tipping point when solidarity is undermined if the uniform is too expensive and excludes students [ 83 ]. Howell [ 84 ] argues that among charter school students he studied in the United States, uniform is only one element to increase participation and is far less important than other variables like family dynamics. However, claims about uniform fostering solidarity are not supported by empirical research on student feelings about belonging in the school context. Research into school belonging did not find a significant association between school uniform and a sense of belonging to the school community [ 85 ]. Instead, belonging is fostered by a supportive, respectful atmosphere and a sense of achieving.

It has been argued that uniforms communicate messages to those outside the school community. Stephenson [ 86 ] argues the main role of uniform has changed from primarily addressing poverty or removing differences marking class and gender to primarily signaling education standards, and the school’s place in the education market [ 22 , 36 ], showcasing the institutions’ disciplinary philosophy [ 27 ]. Happell [ 87 ] notes that in the United States uniform visually demarcates students and is associated with private education, improving the wider school environment [ 35 ], or maintaining the impression of strictness and safety [ 22 ]. Shao et al. [ 88 ] note that like corporate uniform, school uniform gives cues to the service environment—a more conservative uniform suggests more conservative values, higher socio-economic status, and by association higher academic achievement. Indeed, Bodine [ 89 ] notes that uniform reinforces and delineates social hierarchies and who belongs. Belonging can be inclusive, encouraging broad participation and access, or exclusive by drawing lines between people and putting up practical barriers to access, delineating who is and is not worthy of privilege [ 90 ].

Within institutions uniform is a management tool [ 21 ]. It has the veneer of solidarity, but there is no empirical evidence linking uniform to feelings of belonging to a school. Uniform also signals tradition, and communicates the place in the education market to outsiders, especially a school’s disciplinary and academic climate. The factors affecting a school’s choice to require a uniform is in turn affected by wider forces of socio-political climate and human rights.

Wider Forces: Socio-Political Climate

As illustrated in Figure 1 , the individual health and educational impacts of uniform are nestled in the broader school culture, which in turn is influenced by the wider socio-political context, influenced by the community’s values. A country’s history, power structures, and socio-economic patterns are thus played out through uniforms. Further, dominant societal values are the lens through which human rights and other implicit and explicit values are projected. Uniform wearing can be intrinsic to a greater good, or instrumental in reaching other goals. With this in mind, what data exist on the socio-political factors that influence uniform garment design and policy?

Uniform design and policy slowly changes alongside social and educational policy developments. Thus, New Zealand, uniform design has changed alongside New Zealand’s education policy and socio-political context [ 81 ]. Similarly, in China uniform has gradually incorporated more modern and Western influences in design over time [ 91 ]. In their discussion on the reasons for uniform, Meadmore and Symes argue that uniform wearing is a form of governmentality–the process of unconscious internalization of external values designed to maintain existing power structures. In this way uniform is a “disciplinary tactic” [ 115 ] embodying respectability, cleanliness, modesty, and inoffensiveness. Conformity means meeting the standards of an institution [ 92 ], explicitly in service of an ideal of equality, and implicitly to maintain the societal power dynamics expressed through institutions. Whether a form of governmentality or not, it is clear that uniform is associated with broader societal values.

In some societies, uniform wearing seems intrinsically linked to a greater societal good. Thus, Baumann and Kriskova [ 21 ] argue that high PISA scores are associated with good classroom discipline, which is intrinsically linked to wider societal values. The authors hypothesize that in South Korea and Japan, Confucian values of self-discipline and conformity to ritual inform practical aspects of daily life. Baumann and Kriskova argue that conforming to social norms is part of being a good Confucian; thus, any penalty for breaching uniform standards (a social norm) is explicitly and intrinsically linked to becoming a better Confucian.

Alternatively, uniform wearing can be instrumental in reaching other ends. Hence, when uniform use became common in the Anglosphere in the 1800’s, there seems to have been a (noble) aim of making schools islands of fairness in an unfair world. Craik [ 93 ] states that in England school uniform aimed to equalize social class, creating social camouflage through functional, reasonably priced clothing. However, this rationale ignores wider societal power structures, and that uniform wearing may be mainly instrumental to another goal. Thus, in some post-colonial contexts uniform was part of a transfer of British values and seen as a way to civilize and promote a certain ideology [ 92 ]. In New Zealand, uniforms were inspired by military dress and were intended to encourage empowerment, belonging, and pride, as well as social camouflage [ 92 ]. In South Africa, school uniforms were imposed on the black population as a means of control [ 36 ]. Australian authors have hypothesized that certain types of school uniform historically represented respectability and happiness and promoted social integration. Wearing a school uniform provided a means for migrant children (and their families) to fit in [ 94 ]. Wearing a school blazer has been described as a cultural symbol of reaching and being included in a social ideal of wealth and educational achievement [ 95 ].

Some socio-political rationales are explicit and are part of clear public policy measures to shape society. For instance, Mujiburrahaman [ 96 ] describes uniform as part of Sharia law implementation in schools in Aceh; Moser notes it is part of fostering citizenship and identity in Indonesia’s schools [ 97 ]; and Draper et al. [ 98 ] describe how uniforms that use a hybrid of traditional and modern clothing styles, materials, and manufacturing techniques are part of a cultural revitalization project in Thailand. In the United States, from the mid-1990’s school uniforms have been explicitly promoted as a means to lower danger and violence in schools and remove classroom distractions [ 99 ]. Indeed, in the United States uniforms are often perceived as more neutral than dress codes because everyone wears the same [ 100 ], as opposed to judgements being made about clothing items against a standard. Overall it appears that uniform use is often driven by goals beyond health or education as values in themselves.

Part 3: Human Rights and Uniform Use

Human rights legislation supporting equity and freedom from religious or gender discrimination and protecting the rights of children has been discussed in conjunction with school uniform. In cases of disagreement about garment design or uniform policy and where institutional policy or social norms do not provide a solution, human rights law has been invoked to help reconcile different rights and values.

Human rights are overarching, universal entitlements that preserve the dignity of humans. Theoretically, human rights are interrelated and indivisible and should not be separated from each other [ 101 ]. Practically, the experience with uniform shows that simultaneously giving effect to different human rights is not straightforward. Social context influences how human rights are interpreted and given legal standing. Looking at the United States, Ahrens [ 102 ] notes that in the 1970’s uniform was of great constitutional concern (impinging of First Amendment right of freedom of expression), whereas nowadays few legal or constitutional problems with uniform are discussed, possibly because the overwhelming concern is student safety; the importance of identifying intruders outweighs concern over freedom of expression [ 103 ].

Equality vs. Equity

The human rights notion that all humans are equal is important to school uniform policy. As noted earlier, the idea that equality of access to education is enhanced by “social camouflage” is a principal historic and current rationale for uniform [ 36 , 89 ]. Proponents of uniform argue it creates equality and emphasize the benefits of homogeneity that outweigh any negative impacts: unity, a sense of belonging (although this point has not been demonstrated empirically), and group identity. In their view, the human right to equal treatment is enhanced by removing outward signs of social differences [ 36 , 89 ]. This may explain why in Malaysia, Woo et al. found that while students thought uniform unattractive, they conceded it reduced outward markers of differing socio-economic status [ 73 ].

However, an equality focus in uniform policy sidesteps the issue of who bears the brunt of equality as “sameness”. Equality focuses on same treatment, while equity focuses on outcomes, sometimes requiring different treatment to achieve similar outcomes [ 104 ]. Data show that uniforms are not intrinsically equitable. The cost of uniforms can affect students’ rights to access education. In addition to inequity of physical activity by gender and barriers for minority groups, the cost of uniform garments themselves is a determinant of access to education, and clearly unequally felt across society. The cost barrier that uniform poses to attending school is widespread, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Using Mongolia as an example, Sabic-el Rayess et al, [ 83 ] note that in countries where the very poor cannot afford uniforms, they do not attend school. Likewise, Simmons-Zuilkowski [ 105 ] found that in South Africa enrollment rates among the very poor are lower because of cost of uniforms. In Kenya, Mutengi [ 106 ] found a statistically significant link between uniform cost and education access, and Green et al. [ 107 ], Sitieni and Pillay [ 108 ] and Cho et al. [ 109 ] describe free uniform as part of support and incentive packages for at-risk children to attend school [ 110 ]. In Ghana, Alagbela [ 111 ] and Akaguri [ 112 ] show that uniform cost creates a barrier to education for the very poor. One contradiction to this trend comes from Hidalgo et al. in one study in Ecuador [ 113 ]. The authors found that providing uniform decreased attendance. However, the authors note that the study was not conducted as anticipated; some families promised uniforms were not supplied with them, and many in the study group had already purchased a uniform (it was therefore a sunk cost), so uniform cost was not a factor that decided school attendance. Cost is also a likely concern among all parents in high-income countries. In the United Kingdom, Davies [ 114 ] examined uniform cost and supply and surveyed parents who were happiest when uniform could be sourced from a mixture of designated shops and high street/generic stores and found that uniforms were cheapest when items could be brought from anywhere. However, as in low income countries, uniform creates an unequal cost burden across the population. In the United States, Da Costa [ 35 ] highlights the economic burden on the poor of buying a school uniform. In South Korea and the United States, poorer parents spend a higher percentage of their income on uniforms [ 36 ]. In New Zealand, a survey of parents [ 115 ] found school uniform cost is a significant burden for poorer families. In Scotland, Naven et al. [ 116 ] reported how uniform cost created such a barrier to education that the state changed its clothing grant policy to help ease the financial burden on families.

Of course cost is not the only equity issue in uniform use, but it is an important one. Davies’ [ 114 ] United Kingdom report on uniform supply and cost found that garment quality was a main influence on purchasing decisions, followed by availability and cost. Surveying parents’ and educators’ attitudes to uniforms, for both groups Davies found uniforms were considered worthwhile because they are a long-term investment: generally long-lasting, infrequently replaced, and cheaper over the student’s career than non-uniform alternatives. However, Davies’ and other data (e.g., Gasson et al., Naven et al., Catherine and Mugalavai, Simmons-Zuilkowski) suggest the large initial upfront cost is a barrier for poorer families. Another reason for concern is that sameness does not result in equity or improve human rights protection. Deane [ 117 ] argues that justifications for uniform based on equity are not well considered because the mere wearing of uniform does not create equity, and does not magic away other differences [ 117 ]. In practical terms, equity through uniforms is inevitably an imperfect idea: even if uniform policy allows students to choose to wear any items from a list so long as items comply with style or color rules, expensive branded items, or other garment choices would inevitably signal differences in economic status, wearer style, and individual preferences. It seems for the very poor/marginalized in any society, uniform can be simply another barrier to education because of the focus on equality, not equity. Ironically, those most in need of education may be denied it via a mechanism that was originally instituted to remove barriers to education.

Uniform and Freedom of Religion

In addition to general rights to equal treatment, specifically protected rights are of concern when considering uniform, particularly freedom of religion and the right to non-discrimination because of gender. Uniform rules and the right to freedom of religion is an example of where courts are asked to reconcile seemingly conflicting rights with each other. For instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art 14) protects freedom of religion [ 118 ]. Nonetheless, this right is not unfettered and can be limited if others’ rights are impinged, and its application depends on how individual countries legislate to support human rights.

Theoretically, uniforms should not impinge on religious freedom. Practically, the situation is not so clear-cut. Complex questions about how religion is represented and how it is recognized are often played out through uniform [ 119 ], especially in liberal democracies. For some, adhering to a school uniform policy means not observing religious requirements. In Australia, where states are required to have a uniform policy, direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of religion is forbidden. Yet there is no clarity on whether a school can have a policy that is silent on students’ religious beliefs and practices [ 120 , 121 ]. Australian courts have found that exceptions to uniform rules can be made to avoid injury to religious sensibilities, doctrines, beliefs, or principles (e.g., allowing wearing yarmulke or hijab). In England (which has a longstanding uniform tradition), the case of Begum sought to balance religious freedom to wear Sharia-appropriate clothes against the right to education, school uniform policy [ 122 , 123 ], and women’s rights. In Begum the court found that social cohesion, protecting minority rights, and ensuring religious freedom must be balanced [1 , 124 – 126 . In Begum , the judgment shows how tricky it is to reconcile all human rights in themselves, let alone apply them within the context uniform policy requirements.

Whatever the social context, outward signs of faith can challenge both uniform rules and wider societal values such as secularity in public institutions. Gereluk [ 72 ] argues for reasonable accommodation and mechanisms to redress potential unequal treatment of minorities. What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” appears to be context-dependent.

Uniform and Gender

Similarly to promoting equity and freedom of religion, human rights protect non-discrimination by gender. The discussion so far has shown that whatever the rationale, uniform garment design has a greater impact on girls, particularly on their physical health. This differential effect has been addressed by human rights legislation. For instance, The New Zealand Human Rights Commission agreed with a complaint of discrimination on gender grounds by two female-identified students [ 127 ] who argued that the requirement to wear a skirt disadvantaged them because it restricted their movement. Settlement was reached when the school added culottes (shorts that look like skirts) to the school uniform. In this example, human rights legislation allowed schools to have uniform codes for males and females, providing uniforms do not disadvantage one gender or group.

Differential treatment by gender is underpinned by historical and some current thought, though it is rarely discussed in relation to uniform. This is possibly because it is linked to deeply entrenched and normalized gender roles. Political and philosophical research addresses this point. Dussel [ 128 ] argues that school uniforms hamper, restrain, and try to domesticate girls’ bodies. Happel [ 87 ] argues that school uniform is linked to gendered performance, where school uniforms underpin sex and gender roles, because they restrict movement and confirm traditional gender identities. Happel [ 87 ] argues that because skirts allow for exposure of underwear, buttocks, and genitals, girls are taught modesty/immodesty through a garment. Girls are thus objectified because they have to curb their behavior because of another’s gaze. In this review no evidence was found of any of the above restrictions caused by boys’ uniform. Notably, girls’ uniforms tend to be more expensive [ 106 , 114 ], illustrating that even here there is a “pink tax” for female-oriented products that perform the same function as a unisex/male alternative [ 114 , 129 ]. Further, normalized gender roles affect gender-diverse students, already a group at risk of exclusion. For gender diverse students, non-inclusive uniform policies are particularly problematic [ 130 ] and affect them disproportionately [ 17 ]. Non-inclusive uniform policy relies upon the idea that clothing is an essential element of gender identity and that any fluidity or flexibility in dress rules risks undermining individual and collective gender identity. There is no evidence of gender identity being so fragile [ 131 ]. In practical terms, Henebery [ 132 ] argues that even if uniforms have unisex options, they are still split by gender, where skirts are limited to biological girls. Interestingly, Bragg [ 133 ] notes that a school uniform policy that strictly enforces male/female uniforms is in stark contrast with the broader and more fluid social understanding and representations of gender that students are exposed to, especially in Western countries.

It appears that uniforms place a physical restriction and price premium on girls, and policy does not routinely consider gender diverse students. This is driven by socio-cultural norms and negatively impinges on their human rights, despite the overarching right to equal treatment irrespective of gender.

Uniform and Children and Young People’s Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is another area of human rights that often clashes with uniform. The right to freedom of expression (Art 13 UNCRC [ 134 ]) can be restricted in respect of the rights and reputations of others, protection of national security, and public order. Article 12 (UNCRC, 1989) details that free expression is given weight in accordance with the age and development of the child. Some hold that school uniforms are inherently restrictive, arguing that school uniform hampers expressive rights and normal identity exploration, constitutes intrusive control of group behavior (e.g., 35), and symbolizes oppression [ 131 ]. Conversely, others argue argues that it is nonsensical to say that uniforms crush self-expression when there are many other creative outlets [ 89 ]. There is no empirical evidence on this point. Vopat takes a different approach and considers children’s moral and psychological development. Looking at expression and developmental stage, Vopat [ 40 ] separates self-expression into two categories: mere expression, and substantive expression. Mere expression is simply about what a person likes/dislikes, whereas substantive expression is an outer manifestation of deeply held values or another specific intention. Vopat [ 40 ] argues that small children lack the cognitive ability for substantive expression because they do not have the psychological capacity for it yet. Nonetheless, Vopat [ 40 ] suggests that uniform may be a learning point for students. Children need thinking time to become their moral selves. School uniforms provide explicit teachable moments, opportunities to think using different moral frameworks to examine the utility of different social attire and freedom of expression in context, and children’s understanding of and critical thinking about social appropriateness of dress [ 135 ], which enhances learning outcomes [ 40 ]. Conversely, and despite these learning opportunities, Deane [ 117 ] argues that uniform’s blindness to or suppression of difference implicitly dampens the ability think about and discuss difference; thought is constrained because uniform creates an implicit understanding that strangers should be the same as oneself, and where there is difference, there is danger. Consequently, uniform suppresses recognition and discussion about differences in ethnicity, religion, or class [ 117 ].

There is no empirical evidence either way that uniform constrains freedom of expression. There are hypotheses that uniform provides a teaching opportunity about appropriate dress, and socializes people to a particular dress standard. Other ideas suggest that uniform allows students to rebel in safe confines [ 81 ].

Children’s Rights and Minors as a Vulnerable Group

The rights of children sit alongside other rights. These rights protect children because the wider socio-political climate identifies children and minors as a vulnerable class of people who need protection.

However, there is no agreement about what rights of children exactly should be protected, and many wider concerns about children are projected onto uniform [ 89 ]. Through an institution limiting clothing choice or requiring certain clothing, Bodine [ 89 ] argues that uniform protects childhood by protecting children from sending messages with their clothing choices that they do not fully understand. However, exactly what is protected is unclear. Vopat [ 40 ] argues protection should be linked to the child’s moral development and ability to reason, balanced against Article 12 of UNCROC, which includes the duty to consider children’s voice in decisions that affect them. Some [ 87 ] argue that uniform should be done away with altogether because of harm to children’s human rights. Irrespective of children’s vulnerability and human rights, Brunsma and Rockquemore [ 136 ] argue that even if uniforms do not harm, and young children cannot yet exercise their rights, there is no justification for imposing uniforms in an educational context, especially if uniforms do not improve educational goals.

Overall, while human rights are universal, the way they are expressed in particular cultural contexts varies, driven by socio-political forces. It appears that the idea that uniform is inherently equitable is flawed. It does not level social class, and is not blind to religion, gender, and socio-economic status. It does not necessarily consider cultural and individual identity or diversity. Data on human rights and uniform show that uniform policies result in unequal impact of garment design and policy on girls and religious minorities. Data on freedom of expression is equivocal. Whatever the case, wider sociocultural issues are clearly played out through uniforms, and it appears that uniforms can become a proxy for other issues, particularly considering the special status of children and young people. Blanket approaches to uniform policy can be repressive of cultural identity/diversity and ignore entrenched power imbalances [ 22 , 131 ]. By scrutinizing the outcomes of uniform policy, it is clear that many uniform policies have neutral/minimal impact for the majority, but the minority must compromise cultural or religious values to comply with uniform rules. Females make up half the population, yet uniform design limits their ability to participate in incidental physical activity, a proven enhancer of health and educational outcomes.

This review demonstrates that far from being a “trivial relic” [ 22 ], school uniform is an important yet neglected public health issue that affects all students who are required to wear it. As a preliminary review, this study maps the conceptual landscape of school uniform garment design and policy in a public health framework, and brings evidence together to show health and education impacts of school uniform use. The review shows that school uniform is important, but not for commonly believed reasons. First, there persists a belief that school uniform in itself enhances academic outcomes. This is unsupported by evidence—there is no direct link between uniform and academic achievement [ 33 ]. However, uniform does contribute to a more settled classroom environment [ 21 ], which facilitates learning. Second, some studies argue uniform can distract from a good rapport between students and teachers, which is linked to improved learning (30,37). Third, despite common belief, uniform has no empirically supported impact on enhancing a feeling of belonging to a school [ 85 ]. Notably, there is a general paucity of evidence for use and a gap between what is believed about uniform and what is supported by empirical evidence. It appears that uniform use and policy is a neglected area of research: given its widespread use there is surprisingly little empirical evidence about its use or effects at all.

Concerningly, psychological and physical health impacts of uniform have been neglected. Positively, uniform removes the psycho-social barrier of competitive dressing. Indeed, well-designed uniform garments that are comfortable to wear, do not restrict physical activity for all students, that protect against environmental hazards, plus a uniform policy that is inclusive of all students (irrespective of gender/gender identity) can enhance student physical and psychological health [ 47 , 48 , 54 ]. Neutrally, uniform can both increase and decrease bullying. Negatively, inflexible uniform policies and garment design disadvantage girls, gender-diverse students, and overweight students because they do not feel confident in participating in physical activity while wearing uniform garments (47–51,53). From a physical health perspective, empirical evidence demonstrates that girls’ physical health is particularly disadvantaged. Girls make up around half the school-aged population, so the demonstrated link between poor uniform design and worse physical and psycho-social health for girls is of concern. Physically restrictive uniforms can hamper girls’ physical and social participation in school, especially physical activity during breaks and on the journey to school. Poorly designed sports uniform may also deter girls’ and overweight children’s participation in timetabled physical education. For all students, there is no evidence of systematic consideration in uniform policy of health and safety and protection from environmental hazards that permits students to wear garments to suit the weather conditions, or that ensures garments are comfortable to wear.

Further, gender-based inequity is inherent in uniform; girls’ uniforms are more expensive and more restrictive. Inequity exists for religious minorities and gender-diverse students who have to dress to fit the uniform policy rather than dress so they feel physically comfortable. Because garment design reflects the norms of the dominant culture, religious and ethnic minorities, and gender-diverse students often have to compromise beliefs and identity to comply with uniform rules.

This review shows that uniform garment design and policy focus on equality (same treatment) at the expense of equity (different treatment to achieve similar outcomes). While uniform removes the psycho-social pressure on individuals and families of competitive dressing and outward signs of socio-economic differences between students, it does not eliminate inequity. Paradoxically, uniforms can worsen inequity. Worldwide, for the very poorest students, the cost of a uniform may be prohibitive, creating a barrier to education before the students even arrive on school grounds [ 83 , 105 – 107 , 109 – 112 , 114 – 116 , 137 ]. For some students the disadvantages will be cumulative. Using the public health lens of analysis highlights this avoidable inequity.

Why do we compel children to wear uniforms and persist with policies that detract from physical and psycho-social health, and that disadvantage poorer students? This review has highlighted that uniform has become a proxy for many issues. Financial and political economies are projected onto uniform policy and garment design. An organisation’s history, institutional stewardship, values, and traditions are often embodied in uniform, which is possibly why certain designs and materials are so enduring. Uniform signals a school’s place in the education market and gives external and internal indications of the school culture (22, 26, 36). Uniform also appears to enhance school operations (21). In classrooms it helps students settle to task and help identify intruders and improve security (36,43), or the perception of security (44).

A public health lens helps to shed light on uniforms, and their impact on health and education. The public health frame of analysis brings together and organizes data from different disciplines to illuminate questions that are important to population health, illustrating proximate factors and distal factors to individual experiences. It has also shown that uniform merits public health interest: if uniform use is prevalent, its use impacts on health and educational outcomes, and, importantly, school uniform garments and policies regulating their use are amenable to improvement, with an eye to improving equity.

This study’s principal limitation is that data is only drawn from English-language research largely focused on the Anglosphere or where articles were available in English, yet much of the world that wears uniform is not Anglophone. Potentially important data may have been missed. Further this study’s primary data are primarily peer-reviewed articles, which ensures rigor, but leaves out a depth of information from other sources. Further, articles of all types (including commentaries) were included because this research focused on evidence about uniform use, rather than the quality of that evidence. For time constraints conference proceedings and PhD theses were excluded. Note that there were variations in the types of studies done. For instance, the physical impacts of uniform use (e.g., on physical activity of wearers, protection against environmental hazards) were measured using quantitative or qualitative/quantitative mixes of design with larger sample sizes. For instance Norrish et al’s [ 48 ] work on physical activity for girls was one of the few that included objective and subjective measures of the phenomena under investigation, with a repeated measures crossover design (same group tested in two different conditions). Finally, as with other areas of inquiry, philosophical pieces or commentaries often argue against the status quo rather than defend it. It is possible that there exist more positive or neutral impacts of uniform on education and health than have been hitherto documented, especially in empirical research.

Limitations notwithstanding, this research will be of interest to those within the public health community, those involved in uniform regulation and design, and those involved in educational management. It will also be of special interest to the general public, who will be better informed about the evidence for what uniform achieves, and what can be done about making it better. Conceptually, issues related to uniform design are of interest to researchers of other populations (e.g., prisoners, military) with diminished capacity or whose choice of clothing is restricted.

This review has important implications for future research. It has highlighted gaps in knowledge about garment design and uniform policy and their impacts.

Regarding garment design, more information is required on different priorities that inform design choices: durability, serviceability, safety of materials, quality, and comfort to the wearer, particularly with an eye to protection against environmental hazards, and how to make garment styles enduring over time as well as inclusive, comfortable, and health-promoting.

Other issues like cost, value for money, environmental sustainability and ethical sourcing of materials may be of interest. Furthermore, different stakeholder (student, parent, teacher, school administrator) perspectives could be measured to further explore what factors influence garment design, how those different factors inform uniform use policy within schools, extending on multi stakeholder studies similar to that done by Wilken and van Aardt [ 42 ] or McCarthy et al [ 41 ]. Regarding uniform use policy, there is little information about how school rules are developed and what principles might look like to ensure uniform use is education and health promoting. Regarding impacts of design and policy, further studies are required with objective and subjective measures of whatever phenomenon related to uniform is being investigated. In particular, more studies are required on the health and psycho-social impacts of uniforms. For instance studies such as Hopkins [ 51 ], Norrish et al. [ 48 ] and Watson et al. [ 49 ] could be replicated in other jurisdictions and cultural settings.

In terms of public policy, there is little peer-reviewed evidence on supply chains, competition law, and profits that drive uniform costs. There is little evidence about how to reduce the cost barrier of uniforms for the poor; how different societal values are incorporated into uniform design (e.g., environmental protection and school/community tradition, or, given the impacts of uniform on health and access to education, whether any form of government regulation of upfront cost, uniform policy or garment design is required (especially for state-funded schools).

An important practical implication is making the evidence about uniform’s education and health impacts available in a form easily accessible to school administrators and governors to inform their uniform garment and policy decisions. After all, educators are experts in education, not garment design or uniform policy development, so it is unsurprizing that, left alone to organize uniform, they may not develop the most health and education-promoting garments or policies.

Uniform use is deceptively simple. It is so commonplace and ordinary, however, the questions it sparks are complex and are related to deeply held views of what is normal, traditional, and socially acceptable. Yet uniform use has real impacts on health and education, for better and for worse. This review shows that uniforms may be the right diagnosis for creating an equitable learning environment, providing cost-effective garments over a student’s learning career, and easing the psychological pressure of competitive dressing. However, this review shows the importance of getting the prescription right. The efficacy and effectiveness of uniforms as a vehicle for equitable access to education and good health depends on the right prescription for uniform policy and garment design that remove potential negative effects of poor garment design and policy.

A public health lens reveals that much school uniform garment design and use policy negatively affects the poor, girls, religious and ethnic minorities, and gender-diverse students. It is a sad irony that these are the very groups who could benefit most from the equitable access to education that uniform is supposed to facilitate. This review also shows how environmental hazards, health and safety concerns, and garment comfort are neglected for all uniform wearers. There is no natural reason why any of this should be so.

Fortunately, any negative educational and health impacts of school uniform garment design and policy are amenable to change. The clarity that this review provides about the evidence for uniform’s impact on health and education may provide a starting point to ensure uniform is as healthy and education-promoting as possible and to build on the advantages uniform offers. By examining evidence of how uniform and uniform policy impacts on students’ health and wellbeing, perhaps it will be easier to establish a common idea about school uniform’s purpose(s), with a view to improving wearer experience. If the educational and health impacts of uniform are clear it could be possible to improve wearer experience to ensure that garments are desirable, equitable, healthy, and safe [ 22 ], and that both policies and garments enable all students to learn and thrive in modern life.

Author Contributions

The author undertook this entire project.

Time spent on this research was funded from my ordinary teaching salary.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. Bacquet, S. School Uniforms, Religious Symbols and the Human Rights Act 1998: The “Purity Ring” Case. Educ L (2008). 08:11–18.

Google Scholar

2.Battison v Melloy (2014). NZHC 1462.

3. Schmidt-McCleave, R. The “Haircut Case” – what Was it Really about? [Internet]. Auckland (2014). Available from: https://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2014/8/15/the-“haircut-case”-–-what-was-it-really-about/

4. Anthony, J. Ministry of Education Sends Advice to Schools about Uniform Sales [Internet]. Stuff (2020). Available from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/119043586/ministry-of-education-sends-advice-to-schools-about-uniform-sales (cited 28 Feb 2020)

5. Plummer, F, and Johnson, M. Keeping Kids in Their School Uniforms Makes Everyone Even Equal, Experts Say. [Internet]. The New Daily (2019). Available from: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/31/school-uniform/

6. Wearn, R, and England, R. School Uniform: Can it Be Bought More Cheaply? [Internet]. BBC News (2019). Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49090913 (cited 23 Nov 2020)

7. Mcauley, J. School Uniform Costs: Children “Asking Santa for Basic Items” [Internet] (2019). Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49072123 (cited 22 Nov 2020)

8. Murray, S. Back to School Costs Rising at Secondary and Primary Level as 27% of Parents Find Themselves in Debt. [Internet]. J. (2020). Available from: https://www.thejournal.ie/back-to-school-costs-4-5173558-Aug2020/ (cited 22 Nov 2020)

9. Vezich, D. School Uniform Prices Should Be Lowered - Education Minister. Newshub [Internet] (2018). Available from: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/01/school-uniform-prices-should-be-lowered-education-minister.html .

10. Ferguson, D. School’s Back but Some Parents Can’t Keep up with the Cost of Branded Uniforms. The Guardian [Internet] (2019). Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/31/schools-back-parents-cant-keep-up-with-cost-of-branded-uniforms .

11. Bhattarai, A. School Uniforms Are on the Rise — Even for Toddlers — and It’s Changing Back-To-School Shopping [Internet]. The Washington Post (2019). Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/22/school-uniforms-are-rise-even-toddlers-its-changing-back-to-school-shopping/ (cited 22 Nov 2020)

12. Gerritsen, J. Schools Encouraged to Adopt Gender-Neutral Uniforms [Internet]. Radio New Zealand (2017). Available from: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/331861/schools-encouraged-to-adopt-gender-neutral-uniforms .

13. Lowson, G. The Pros and Cons of School Uniforms [Internet]. The Globe and Mail (2016). Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/the-pros-and-cons-of-school-uniforms/article32108051/ (cited 22 Nov 2020)

14. Armstrong, D. Back to School and Those boring, Expensive Uniforms [Internet]. Stuff (2020). Available from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/119072917/back-to-school-and-those-boring-expensive-uniforms (cited 22 Nov 2020)

15. Oppenheimer, M. The Downsides of School Uniform [Internet]. The New Yorker (2017). Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unquestioned-goodness-of-school-uniforms (cited 23 Nov 2020)

16. Scott, J. School Uniforms: A History of “Rebellion and Conformity” [Internet]. BBC News Online (2014). Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29047752 (cited 23 Nov 2020)

17. Daly, M. Gender-specific Uniforms a Relic of the Past, Secondary Teachers’ union Says. Stuff [Internet] (2017). Available from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/93078826/genderspecific-uniforms-a-relic-of-the-past-secondary-teachers-union-says?rm=m

18. Marmot, M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010 . London: Institute of Health Equity ; (2016).

19.UN Women. SDG 4: Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All [Internet]. Sustainable Development Goals (2015). Available from: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/women-and-the-sdgs/sdg-4-quality-education .

20.WHO. Health in All Policies: A Framework for Country Action [Internet] (2014). WHO, Geneva: Available from: https://www.who.int/healthpromotion/frameworkforcountryaction/en/ .

21. Baumann, C, and Krskova, H. School Discipline, School Uniforms and Academic Performance. In Int J Educ Manag [Internet] , editor: K Hana, (2016). 30(6). p. 1003–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0118 .

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Meadmore, D, and Symes, C. Keeping up Appearances: Uniform Policy for School Diversity? Br J Educ Stud (1997). 45(2):174–86. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00044

23. Lopez, RA. The Long Beach Unified School District Uniform Initiative: A Prevention-Intervention Strategy for Urban Schools. J Negro Educ (2003). 72(4):396–405. doi:10.2307/3211191

24. Olson, L. Inside the “Long Beach Way. Educ Week (2007). 27(2):22–5.

25. Bodine, A. School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research. J Educ Res (2003). 97(2):67–71. doi:10.1080/00220670309597509 Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0742271727&doi=10.1080%2F00220670309597509&partnerID=40&md5=044f50e3ba7e730d11bac906410675ce .

26. Gentile, E, and Imberman, SA. Dressed for success? the Effect of School Uniforms on Student Achievement and Behavior. J Urban Econ [Internet] (2012). 71(1):1–17. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80155135288&doi=10.1016%2Fj.jue.2011.10.002&partnerID=40&md5=a0ffb9bf14d9ef347a65f9930ed1b9ff

27. Gentile, E, and Imberman, SA. (2009). Dressed for Success: Do School Uniforms Improve Student Behavior, Attendance, and Achievement?

28. Stockton, C, Gullatt, DE, and Parke, DR. School Uniforms: Policies and Procedures. Res Middle Level Educ Annu (2002). 25(1):1–13. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85058290626&doi=10.1080%2F19404476.2002.11658154&partnerID=40&md5=c1ff7a7867690efa5d4c35bff9c3323b doi:10.1080/19404476.2002.11658154

29. Yeung, R Are School Uniforms a Good Fit? Educ Pol . (2009). 23(6):847–74. doi:10.1177/0895904808330170

30. Creasy, R, and Corby, F. Taming Childhood: A Critical Perspective on Policy, Practice and Parenting [Internet]. Palgrave Pivot (2019). Available from: https://link-springer-com.wmezproxy.wnmeds.ac.nz/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-11842-6.pdf#page=120 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11842-6

31. Hattie, J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement . Routledge (2009).

32. Hattie, J. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group (2012). doi:10.4324/9780203181522

33. Hattie, J. Hattie Ranking: 252 Influences and Effect Sizes Related to Student Achievement [Internet]. Visible Learn (2017). Available from: https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/ (cited 23 Nov 2020)

34. Firmin, M, Smith, S, and Perry, L. School Uniforms: A Qualitative Analysis of Aims and Accomplishments at Two Christian Schools. J Res Christian Educ (2006). 15(2):143–68. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85013139576&doi=10.1080%2F10656210609485000&partnerID=40&md5=5c760f61823a116a1b57699e4f09311b doi:10.1080/10656210609485000

35. DaCosta, K. Dress Code Blues: An Exploration of Urban Students’ Reactions to a Public High School Uniform Policy. J Negro Educ [Internet] (2006). 75(1):49–59. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026503 .

36. Wilken, I, and van Aardt, A. School Uniforms: Tradition, Benefit or Predicament? Educ as Change (2012). 16(1):159–84. doi:10.1080/16823206.2012.692211

37. Hodge, W, and Osborne-Lampkin, L. When Leadership and Policy Making Collide: The Valley View Middle School Experience. J Case Stud Educ (2014). 6:1–18.

38. Gromova, CR, and Hayrutdinova, RR. Multicultural Training of the Teacher for Work with Children of Muslim Migrants. Proced - Soc Behav Sci (2017). 237:288–91. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.078

39. Park, J. Do School Uniforms Lead to Uniform Minds? School Uniforms and Appearance Restrictions in Korean Middle Schools and High Schools. Fashion Theor [Internet] . (2013). 17(2):159–77doi:10.2752/175174113X13541091797607

40. Vopat, MC. Mandatory School Uniforms and freedom of Expression. Ethics Educ (2010). 5(3):203–15. doi:10.1080/17449642.2010.519139

41. McCarthy, N, Hope, K, Sutherland, R, Campbell, E, Hodder, R, Wolfenden, L, et al. Australian Primary School Principals', Teachers', and Parents' Attitudes and Barriers to Changing School Uniform Policies from Traditional Uniforms to Sports Uniforms. J Phys Act Health [Internet] (2020). 17(10):1019–24. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=146221263&site=ehost-live doi:10.1123/jpah.2020-0116

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Wilken, I, and van Aardt, A. School Uniforms: Tradition, Benefit or Predicament? Education as Change [Internet] (2012). 16(1):159–84. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84863939222&doi=10.1080%2F16823206.2012.692211&partnerID=40&md5=5e2b0b5552162d594c1d7f66261f5922 doi:10.1080/16823206.2012.692211

43. Cheurprakobkit, S, and Bartsch, RA. Security Measures on School Crime in Texas Middle and High Schools. Educ Res (2005). 47(2):235–50. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-18844363483&doi=10.1080%2F00131880500104366&partnerID=40&md5=122f75c1519171076a50e4cb99b5c88b doi:10.1080/00131880500104366

44. Wade, KK, and Stafford, ME. Public School Uniforms. Educ Urban Soc (2003). 35(4):399–420. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0042157275&doi=10.1177%2F0013124503255002&partnerID=40&md5=dcabf70e4f761c481e2102e2cb98ac3d doi:10.1177/0013124503255002

45.WHO. Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity . Geneva: WHO (2016).

46. Fedewa, AL, and Ahn, S. The Effects of Physical Activity and Physical Fitness on Children's Achievement and Cognitive Outcomes. Res Q Exerc Sport . (2011). 82(3):521–35. doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599785

47. McCarthy, N, Nathan, N, Hodder, R, Lecathelinais, C, Sutherland, R, Campbell, E, et al. Australian Primary School Student's Attitudes to Changing from Traditional School Uniforms to Sports Uniforms and Association with Student Characteristics. Aust New Zealand J Public Health (2019). 43(1):94–5. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12851

48. Norrish, H, Farringdon, F, Bulsara, M, and Hands, B. The Effect of School Uniform on Incidental Physical Activity Among 10-Year-Old Children. Asia-Pacific J Health Sport Phys Educ . (2012). 3(1):51–63. doi:10.1080/18377122.2012.666198

49. Watson, A, Eliott, J, and Mehta, K. Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Physical Activity during the School Lunch Break for Girls Aged 12-13 Years. Eur Phys Educ Rev (2015). 21(2):257–71. doi:10.1177/1356336x14567545

50. Stanley, RM, Boshoff, K, and Dollman, J. Voices in the Playground: A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators of Lunchtime Play. [Internet]. J Sci Med Sport (2012). 15(1):44–51. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244011001496 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.08.002

51. Hopkins, D, and Mandic, S. Perceptions of Cycling Among High School Students and Their Parents. [Internet]. Int J Sustain Transportation (2017). 11(5):342–56. doi:10.1080/15568318.2016.1253803

52. Ward, AL, McGee, R, Freeman, C, Gendall, PJ, and Cameron, C. Transport Behaviours Among Older Teenagers from Semi-rural New Zealand. Aust New Zealand J Public Health ]. (2018). 42(4):340–6. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12803

53. Pausé, C. (Can We) Get Together? Fat Kids and Physical Education. [Internet]. Health Educ J (2019). 78(6):662–9. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85065248741&doi=10.1177%2F0017896919846182&partnerID=40&md5=9dccdb7c0144792d6b420bf7ca7b171a doi:10.1177/0017896919846182

54. Gage, R, Leung, W, Stanley, J, Reeder, A, Mackay, C, Smith, M, et al. Sun Protection Among New Zealand Primary School Children. Heal Educ Behav [Internet]. (2018). 45(5):800–7. doi:10.1177/1090198117741943

55. Harrison, SL, Buettner, PG, and MacLennan, R. The North Queensland "Sun-Safe Clothing" Study: Design and Baseline Results of a Randomized Trial to Determine the Effectiveness of Sun-Protective Clothing in Preventing Melanocytic Nevi. Am J Epidemiol . (2005). 161(6):536–45. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi081

56. Sinclair, WH, and Brownsberger, JC. Wearing Long Pants while Working Outdoors in the Tropics Does Not Yield Higher Body Temperatures. Aust N Z J Public Health (2013). 37(1):70–5. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12013

57. Turner, D, and Harrison, SL. Sun protection provided by Regulation School Uniforms in Australian Schools: An Opportunity to Improve Personal Sun protection during Childhood. Photochem Photobiol (2014). 90(6):1439–45. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84915737039&doi=10.1111%2Fphp.12312&partnerID=40&md5=7ce0591810d2afd1640a0e3e767e64a5 doi:10.1111/php.12312

58. Reeder, AI, Mcnoe, B, and Petersen, AL. Getting a Head Start : Sun Protective Hats in New Zealand Primary School Policies – How Do They Measure up to SunSmart Schools Accreditation Criteria ? (2018). Wellington : NIWA, p. 2018.

59. Wilder-Smith, A, Byass, P, Olanratmanee, P, Maskhao, P, Sringernyuang, L, Logan, JG, et al. The Impact of Insecticide-Treated School Uniforms on Dengue Infections in School-Aged Children: Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial in Thailand. Trials [Internet] , 13 (2012). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84868702384&doi=10.1186%2F1745-6215-13-212&partnerID=40&md5=ba79436686907252154fe194c43153fa doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-212

60. Wilder-Smith, A, Tissera, H, AbuBakar, S, Kittayapong, P, Logan, J, Neumayr, A, et al. Novel Tools for the Surveillance and Control of Dengue: Findings by the dengueTools Research Consortium. [Internet]. Glob Health Action (2018). 11(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057765266&doi=10.1080%2F16549716.2018.1549930&partnerID=40&md5=07561538aaf938448a68fd394ce48bb4 doi:10.1080/16549716.2018.1549930

61. DeRaedt Banks, S, Orsborne, J, Gezan, SA, Kaur, H, Wilder-Smith, A, Lindsey, SW, et al. Permethrin-Treated Clothing as Protection against the Dengue Vector, Aedes aegypti : Extent and Duration of Protection. [Internet]. Plos Negl Trop Dis (2015). 9(10). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84959111526&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0004109&partnerID=40&md5=f3361a60bbfc3805803a318a3b672947 doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004109

62. Kittayapong, P, Olanratmanee, P, Maskhao, P, Byass, P, Logan, J, Tozan, Y, et al. Mitigating Diseases Transmitted by Aedes Mosquitoes: A Cluster-Randomised Trial of Permethrin-Impregnated School Uniforms. [Internet]. Plos Negl Trop Dis (2017). 11(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85012862506&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0005197&partnerID=40&md5=af01853c5b952d77b3fb9b2f8f7d1864 doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005197

63. Massad, E, Amaku, M, Coutinho, FAB, Kittayapong, P, and Wilder-Smith, A. Theoretical Impact of Insecticideimpregnated School Uniforms on Dengue Incidence in Thai Children. [Internet]. Glob Health Action (2013). 6(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84880159351&doi=10.3402%2Fgha.v6i0.20473&partnerID=40&md5=2c5cfe54166535982d3da3a52a6361b9 doi:10.3402/gha.v6i0.20473

64. Murray, N, Jansarikij, S, Olanratmanee, P, Maskhao, P, Souares, A, Wilder-Smith, A, et al. Acceptability of Impregnated School Uniforms for Dengue Control in Thailand: A Mixed Methods Approach. [Internet]. Glob Health Action (2014). 7(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84907458950&doi=10.3402%2Fgha.v7.24887&partnerID=40&md5=7806581f48d7e4c65d8fca3f278f68a6 doi:10.3402/gha.v7.24887

65. Tozan, Y, Ratanawong, P, Louis, VR, Kittayapong, P, and Wilder-Smith, A. Use of Insecticide-Treated School Uniforms for Prevention of Dengue in Schoolchildren: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. [Internet]. PLoS One (2014). 9(9). Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1564387184?accountid=14700 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108017

66.UK Health and Safety Executive. Case 202 - A School Is Using Health and Safety as the Explanation for Their Policy on Pupils Not Being Allowed to Wear Jewellery [Internet]. (2013). Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/2013/case202-school-jewellery.htm

67. Zakaria, N. Sizing System for Functional Clothing - Uniforms for School Children. [Internet]. Indian J Fibre Text Res (2011). 36(4):348–57. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-83455230877&partnerID=40&md5=9ee7f506829ba796f6963a268d07c09d .

68. Zhang, L-X, Wang, J-P, Lyu, Y, and Xi, Y-M. Investigation and Analysis on Design and Satisfaction of High School Girls’ Summer School Uniform. [Internet]. J Beijing Inst Cloth Technol (Natural Sci Ed (2014). 34(2):41–6. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84912014211&partnerID=40&md5=facc7ff6c73fe774d7187ca2472624c9 .

69. Sugamiya, K. Relations between Clothes Worn by High School Students and Air Temperature in winter. [Internet]. J Jpn Res Assoc Text End-Uses (2000). 41(5):42–54. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0033937496&partnerID=40&md5=0e0ac63656dd94857568ae87eeebbaad

70. Su, Y, Xu, J, Lei, Z, Li, P, and Wang, Y. Numerical Study on Effect of thermal Regulation Performance of winter Uniform on thermal Responses of High School Student. Building Environ (2018). 140:43–54. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85047428417&doi=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2018.05.036&partnerID=40&md5=80d3dd4603c218e290b215023638b27e doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.036

71. Li, P. Designing an Elementary School Uniform with Functions of Fit, Comfort, and Road Safety. Fashion Pract (2019). 11(2):222–43. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85067809522&doi=10.1080%2F17569370.2019.1607223&partnerID=40&md5=5787e7a37d16dd644385104ec2995fa4 doi:10.1080/17569370.2019.1607223

72. Gereluk, D. What Not to Wear: Dress Codes and Uniform Policies in the Common School. J Philos Educ (2007). 41(4):643–57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2007.00576.x

73. Woo, JM, Tam, CL, Bonn, GB, and Tagg, B. Student, Teacher, and School Counselor Perceptions of National School Uniforms in Malaysia. Front Psychol [Internet] (2020). 11. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85089352623&doi=10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2020.01871&partnerID=40&md5=c2f28df41799dac3b45c2e1d40c9b08b

74. Jones, AB, Richardson, MJ, Jensen, BT, and Whiting, EF. Perceptions of School Uniforms in Relation to Socioeconomic Statuses. [Internet]. RMLE Online (2020). 43(6):1–13. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85084809009&doi=10.1080%2F19404476.2020.1759298&partnerID=40&md5=81d474e66f91dbbf58d6aac117a9687c doi:10.1080/19404476.2020.1759298

75. Catherine, SNL, and Mugalavai, VK. Effects of Pupils’ Perceptions towards School Uniform on Learners’ Self-Esteem. [Internet]. Nurture (2012). 6(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84875905488&partnerID=40&md5=e8f61e47e226468978d3e6c8c8ce9d7b

76. Sanchez, JE, Yoxsimer, A, and Hill, GC. Uniforms in the Middle School: Student Opinions, Discipline Data, and School Police Data. J Sch Violence (2012). 11(4):345–56. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84866165682&doi=10.1080%2F15388220.2012.706873&partnerID=40&md5=7ff66ad431e410400bfe3609c626e225 doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.706873

77. Cunningham, CE, Cunningham, LJ, Ratcliffe, J, and Vaillancourt, T. A Qualitative Analysis of the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Recommendations of Students in Grades 5 to 8. J Sch Violence ]. (2010). 9(4):321–38. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.507146

78. Meadmore, D, and Symes, C. Of Uniform Appearance: A Symbol of School Discipline and Governmentality . Discourse (1996). doi:10.1080/0159630960170206

79. Swain, J. The Right Stuff: Fashioning an Identity through Clothing in a Junior School. Gend Educ (2002). 14(1):53–69. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0036521976&doi=10.1080%2F09540250120098889&partnerID=40&md5=00aea1dd4120f4f714db44356ce02763 doi:10.1080/09540250120098889

80. Braun, A, Ball, SJ, and Maguire, M. Policy Enactments in Schools Introduction: towards a Toolbox for Theory and Research. Discourse: Stud Cult Polit Educ (2011). 32(4):581–3. doi:10.1080/01596306.2011.601554

81. Webster, E. New Zealand School Uniforms in the Era of Democracy: 1965 to 1975. Costume (2008). 42(1):169–83. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-57749128495&doi=10.1179%2F174963008X285250&partnerID=40&md5=779f0979a618069e25234ceecd2404cf doi:10.1179/174963008x285250

82. Loesch, P. A School Uniform Program that Works. Principal (1995). 74(4):28–30.

83. Sabic-El-Rayess, A, Mansur, N, Batkhuyag, B, and Otgonlkhagva, S. School Uniform Policy’s Adverse Impact on Equity and Access to Schooling. Comp A J Comp Int Educ (2019). 1–18.

84. Howell, WG. Dynamic Selection Effects in Means-Tested, Urban School Voucher Programs. J Pol Anal Manage (2004). 23(2):225–50. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-2142770184&doi=10.1002%2Fpam.20002&partnerID=40&md5=1fa050001f23c0664dcc9c102378c8a3 doi:10.1002/pam.20002

85. John-Akinola, YO, Gavin, A, O’Higgins, SE, and Gabhainn, SN. Taking Part in School Life: Views of Children. [Internet]. Health Educ (2014). 114(1):20–42. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84890368912&doi=10.1108%2FHE-02-2013-0007&partnerID=40&md5=8c6bd00809b66a399eb92416f03e7a3d

86. Stephenson, K. “It’s Not for the Sake of a Ribboned Coat”: A History of British School Uniform . York: University of York (2016).

87. Happel, A Ritualized Girling: School Uniforms and the Compulsory Performance of Gender. J Gend Stud . (2013). 22(1):92–6. doi:10.1080/09589236.2012.745680

88. Shao, CY, Baker, JA, and Wagner, J. The Effects of Appropriateness of Service Contact Personnel Dress on Customer Expectations of Service Quality and purchase Intention. J Business Res (2004). 57:1164–76. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00326-0

89. Bodine, A. School Uniforms and Discourses on Childhood. Childhood (2003). 10(1):43–63. doi:10.1177/0907568203010001003

90. Roffey, S. Inclusive and Exclusive Belonging -the Impact on Individual and Community Well-Being. Educ Child Psychol (2013). 30(1):38–49.

91. Zhang, J, and Li, R. Form and Evolution of Modern Primary and Middle School Students ’ Uniforms. J Silk [Internet] (2019). 56(12):114–21. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85079070744&doi=10.3969%2Fj.issn.1001-7003.2019.12.017&partnerID=40&md5=fdf36a9df000b0ad25a7778b65876a2c .

92. Gibson, S. School Uniforms: A Civilising mission. [Internet] (2018). Available from: https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/3796 (cited 17 Nov 2019)

93. Craik, J. Uniforms Exposed: From Conformity to Transgression . London: Bloomsbury (2005). p. 230.

94. Weaver, H, and Proctor, H. The Question of the Spotted Muumuu: How the Australian Women's Weekly Manufactured a Vision of the Normative School Mother and Child, 1930s-1980s, Hist. Of Ed. Quarterly. [Internet]. Hist Educ Q (2018). 58(2):229–60. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045567505&doi=10.1017%2Fheq.2018.4&partnerID=40&md5=5d98fc7f7cab2cc2eddda1c004eee54d doi:10.1017/heq.2018.4

95. Lovett, T. “What the Blazers?” the Effect of Cultural Symbols on Class Identity and Learning Outcomes. J Educ Enq [Internet] (2013). 12(1):1–14. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84884374852&partnerID=40&md5=e3dc743fd1cc38a216426b9655550d63 .

96. Mujiburrahman, MS, and Muluk, S. School Culture Transformation post Islamic Law Implementation in Aceh. Adv Sci Lett (2017). 23(3):2101–4. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018540479&doi=10.1166%2Fasl.2017.8567&partnerID=40&md5=606362a0d178ff5fc31e68c7dc6a539e doi:10.1166/asl.2017.8567

97. Moser, S. Educating the Nation: Shaping Student-Citizens in Indonesian Schools. Children's Geographies (2016). 14(3):247–62. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84927930137&doi=10.1080%2F14733285.2015.1033614&partnerID=40&md5=9f07df90dce7a24f3b978b378f0f15a5 doi:10.1080/14733285.2015.1033614

98. Draper, J. The Design and Manufacture of Municipal and School Uniforms for a Northeastern Thai Municipality. Sojourn (2016). 31(1):358–75. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84962738300&doi=10.1355%2Fsj31-1s&partnerID=40&md5=0cb20fb4278df78a8529da308a9c24b3 doi:10.1353/soj.2016.0008

99. Walmsley, A. What the United Kingdom Can Teach the United States about School Uniforms. Phi Delta Kappan (2011). 92(6):63–6. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80051558779&doi=10.1177%2F003172171109200614&partnerID=40&md5=da0ded90e1c3584a612154b23fc65f46 doi:10.1177/003172171109200614

100. Underwood, J. Under the Law. [Internet]. Phi Delta Kappan (2018). 99(6):74–5. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85042605617&doi=10.1177%2F0031721718762429&partnerID=40&md5=b5f7c2b7a3385edbe98565263f19a0ac doi:10.1177/0031721718762429

101.OHCHR. The Right to Health. Fact Sheet 31 [Internet] (2008). Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf

102. Ahrens, DM, and Siegel, AM. Of Dress and Redress: Student Dress Restrictions in Constitutional Law and Culture. [Internet]. Harv Civ Rights-civil Lib L Rev (2019). 54(1):49–106. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85069439862&partnerID=40&md5=d9c799bac1c1cb419ff7a9d3ce186d2e

103. Starr, J. School Violence and its Effect on the Constitutionality of Public School Uniform Policies. J L Educ (2000). 29(1).

104. Poynter, M, Hamblin, R, and Shuker, C. Quality Improvement: No Quality without Equity? [Internet]. Wellington: New Zealand Health Quality and Safety Commission (2017). Available from: https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Other-Topics/Equity/Quality_improvement__no_quality_without_equity.pdf .

105. Zuilkowski, SS, Samanhudi, U, and Indriana, I. 'There Is No Free Education Nowadays': Youth Explanations for School Dropout in Indonesia. Compare: A J Comp Int Educ (2019). 49(1):16–29. doi:10.1080/03057925.2017.1369002

106. Mutengi, R. Demand for Education in Kenya: The Effect of School Uniform Cost on Access to Secondary Education. Eur J Educ Sci (2018). 5(2):34–45. doi:10.19044/ejes.v5no2a3

107. Green, EP, Cho, H, Gallis, J, and Puffer, ES. The Impact of School Support on Depression Among Adolescent Orphans: a Cluster-Randomized Trial in Kenya. [Internet]. J Child Psychol Psychiatr (2019). 60(1):54–62. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85051117713&doi=10.1111%2Fjcpp.12955&partnerID=40&md5=e585a193d747c75c14910bd9300cd631 doi:10.1111/jcpp.12955

108. Sitienei, EC, and Pillay, J. Psychosocial Support for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in a Community-Based Organization in Kericho, Kenya. Jcs (2019). 14(4):292–302. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073970184&doi=10.1108%2FJCS-04-2018-0008&partnerID=40&md5=3c657325b28a596e42e0efa63f361a2d doi:10.1108/jcs-04-2018-0008

109. Cho, H, Mbai, I, Luseno, WK, Hobbs, M, Halpern, C, and Hallfors, DD. School Support as Structural HIV Prevention for Adolescent Orphans in Western Kenya. J Adolesc Health (2018). 62(1):44–51. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85032347108&doi=10.1016%2Fj.jadohealth.2017.07.015&partnerID=40&md5=cddd57f538954896f7d70f6b6e4eedda doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.015

110. Mason-Jones, AJ, Sinclair, D, Mathews, C, Kagee, A, Hillman, A, and Lombard, C. School-based Interventions for Preventing HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Pregnancy in Adolescents. [Internet]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2016). 2016(11). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84998655264&doi=10.1002%2F14651858.CD006417.pub3&partnerID=40&md5=e076f61c86b379b61f8752642d3c7459 .

111. Alagbela, A. THE ROLE OF NON - GOVERN ME NTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOS) IN EXPANDING ACCESS TO AND PARTICIPATION IN BASIC EDUCATION IN THE BONGO DISTRICT. Mier-journal Educ Stud Trends Pract. (2015). 5(2):137–50.

112. Akaguri, L. Fee-free Public or Low-Fee Private Basic Education in Rural Ghana: How Does the Cost Influence the Choice of the Poor? Compare: A J Comp Int Educ (2014). 44(2):140–61. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84893951901&doi=10.1080%2F03057925.2013.796816&partnerID=40&md5=d23b1b399b77b07032c9b6cf69654160 doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.796816

113. Hidalgo, D, Onofa, M, Oosterbeek, H, and Ponce, J. Can Provision of Free School Uniforms Harm Attendance? Evidence from Ecuador. [Internet]. J Dev Econ (2013). 103:43–51. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387813000035 (cited 5 Nov 2019)

114. Davies, E. Cost of School Uniform. (June). Dep Educ (2015).

115. Gasson, NR, Pratt, K, Smith, JK, and Calder, JE. The Impact of Cost on Children's Participation in School-Based Experiences: Parents' Perceptions. NZ J Educ Stud (2017). 52(1):123–42. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85021361731&doi=10.1007%2Fs40841-016-0046-z&partnerID=40&md5=cf984782053eb2225fafbf784025c912 doi:10.1007/s40841-016-0046-z

116. Naven, L, Egan, J, Sosu, EM, and Spencer, S. The Influence of Poverty on Children's School Experiences: Pupils' Perspectives. J Poverty Soc Justice (2019). 27(3):313–31. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85078219431&doi=10.1332%2F175982719X15622547838659&partnerID=40&md5=553d2a9b1ae77e42051cf90f6a3c9f63 doi:10.1332/175982719x15622547838659

117. Deane, S. Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms. [Internet]. Philos Stud Educ (2015). 46:111–20. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=108502961&site=ehost-live .

118.OHCHR. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Internet] (1990). Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

119. Thomassen, L. (Not) Just a Piece of Cloth: Begum, Recognition and the Politics of Representation. Polit Theor (2011). 39(3):325–51. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79956077644&doi=10.1177%2F0090591711400026&partnerID=40&md5=1027892c848d28b483cd07c02227dd1b doi:10.1177/0090591711400026

120.Arora v Melton Christian College (Human Rights)VCAT 1507 [Internet]. (2017). Available from: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1507.html?context=1;query=Arora v Melton Christian College;mask_path .

121.EEO. Female Student Wins in Fight to Wear Pants – How Does the Equal Opportunity Act Apply to School Uniforms? [Internet] (2016). Available from: https://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/commission-news/item/1399-female-student-wins-in-fight-to-wear-pants-–-how-does-the-eoa-apply-to-school-uniform .

122. Carney, D, and Sinclair, A. School Uniform Revisited: Procedure, Pressure and equality. [Internet]. Educ L (2006). 18(2/3):131–48. doi:10.1080/09539960600919829 Available from: http://10.0.4.56/09539960600919829 .

123. Gies, L. What Not to Wear: Islamic Dress and School Uniforms. Fem Leg Stud [Internet] (2006). 14(3):377–89. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33847249054&doi=10.1007%2Fs10691-006-9033-y&partnerID=40&md5=31bd25f153a2bbd5d961a3596ca13784 .

124. Bacquet, S. Manifestation of Belief and Religious Symbols at School: Setting Boundaries in English Courts. [Internet]. Relig Hum Rights (2009). 4(2–3):121–35. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-70349632142&doi=10.1163%2F187103109X12471223630919&partnerID=40&md5=6cc6cf2928f3eadfe62b10bd7ab54d31 doi:10.1163/187103109x12471223630919

125. Howard, E. Bans on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in British Schools: A Violation of the Right to Non-discrimination? [Internet]. Religion Hum Rights (2011). 6(2):127–49. doi:10.1163/187103211x576071 Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79958851672&doi=10.1163%2F187103211X576071&partnerID=40&md5=bf48bd9e08ed79058f48b7abe30be6b1 .

126. Nishigai, M. From Categorizing to Balancing liberty Interests in Constitutional Jurisprudence: An Emerging Sliding-Scale Test in the Seventh Circuit and Public School Uniform Policies. [Internet]. Wis L Rev (2001). 2001(6). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0345818473&partnerID=40&md5=84cef98ffd56200543d9dbe8fe17c40d .

127.Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley. Uniforms and Appearance. [Internet]. Available from: https://studentrights.nz/problems-at-school/Uniforms-and-appearance.html

128. Dussel, I. When Appearances Are Not Deceptive: A Comparative History of School Uniforms in Argentina and the United States (Nineteenth-twentieth Centuries). 195–95. Paedagogica Historica (2005). 41(1–2):179. doi:10.1080/0030923042000335538

129. De Blasio, B, and Menin, J. From the Cradle to the Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer, A Study of Gender Pricing in . New York City: NY Department of Consumer Affairs (2015).

130. Jones, T, Smith, E, Ward, R, Dixon, J, Hillier, L, and Mitchell, A. School Experiences of Transgender and Gender Diverse Students in Australia. Sex Educ . (2016). 16(2):156–71. Available from: doi:10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678

131.The Conversation. School Uniforms: What Australian Schools Can Do to Promote Acceptance of Gender Diversity (2018). Available from: https://theconversation.com/school-uniforms-what-australian-schools-can-do-to-promote-acceptance-of-gender-diversity-95134 .

132. Henebery, B. Do we Really Need School Uniforms? [Internet]. The Educator Online (2017). Available from: https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/do-we-really-need-school-uniforms/229540

133. Bragg, S, Renold, E, Ringrose, J, and Jackson, C. 'More Than Boy, Girl, Male, Female': Exploring Young People's Views on Gender Diversity within and beyond School Contexts. Sex Educ (2018). 18(4):420–34. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85042946970&doi=10.1080%2F14681811.2018.1439373&partnerID=40&md5=c7ce849be42e27b5223a48444a929e94 doi:10.1080/14681811.2018.1439373

134.UNICEF. Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Internet] (1989). Available from: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text .

135.Radio New Zealand. “I Can Be Free” - 7-Year-Old Scraps School Uniform Skirt for Shorts. [Internet]. Radio New Zealand (2019). Available from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/117407680/i-can-be-free--7yearold-scraps-school-uniform-skirt-for-shorts .

136. Brunsma, D, and Rockquemore, K. Statistics, Sound Bites, and School Uniforms: A Reply to Bodine. J Educ Res (2003). 19(1):72–7. doi:10.1080/00220670309597510

137. Sitienei, EC, and Pillay, J. Psycho-educational and Social Interventions provided for Orphans and Vulnerable Children at a Community-Based Organisation in Soweto, South Africa. Afr J AIDS Res (2019). 18(1):1–8. doi:10.2989/16085906.2018.1548359 Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85060648476&doi=10.2989%2F16085906.2018.1548359&partnerID=40&md5=f85e44714e69a8d502a62901b4a36380 .

Keywords: school uniform, public health, equity, health impacts, education impacts, human rights

Citation: Reidy J (2021) Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens: Evidence about the Impacts of School Uniform on Education and Health. Public Health Rev 42:1604212. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2021.1604212

Received: 22 April 2021; Accepted: 18 May 2021; Published: 16 June 2021.

Copyright © 2021 Reidy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

PHR is edited by the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) in a partnership with the Association of Schools of Public Health of the European Region (ASPHER)+

*Correspondence: Johanna Reidy, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

What To Write In School Uniform Research Paper?

Table of Contents

While the benefits of such an implementation are obvious to many parents and academic staff – lesser clothing expenditures, more intense focus on the educational process – there are downsides to consider.

How does one approach the issue at hand in a school uniforms pros and cons research paper so that all arguments factoring in are taken into account, exemplified, and backed up by current data?

School uniform research: introducing the topic

The debate around school uniform has been on and off since the late 70s when the first homogenized academic apparels found their way from private to public schools.

As of 2016 though, the issue at hand has consistently enjoyed more and more extensive coverage; that year, based on research data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics , 21.5% of kids in US public schools sported uniforms (a considerable step up with regard to corresponding statistics estimated at 13.8% dating back to 2008 ).

With the talk of legally enforcing uniform in public school that goes back to manual on the matter issued in 1996, it is only natural that both staffers and parents become more and more concerned with the changes and challenges that the potential “ uniformization ” might bring to them.

While covering the topic, it is crucial to highlight viewpoints held by both proponents and opponents of school uniform introduction into the educational system of public schools. Finding and using facts that support the opinions held within either of the camps is the backbone of your research paper.

While you can be strongly opinionated and sticking to one point of view as you start working on your paper, you may find your bias shifting as you discover more facts.

This is a perfectly normal part of the process; word your ideas in a comprehensible and logical way, provide sufficient evidence and proofs of authority, back it up by statistics and trends, and make a conclusion that gives readers a clear idea about your opinion.

School uniform research paper: structuring guide

Research papers on school uniform should be structured in a way that gives the reader a basic understanding of the investigated problem topicality, the existing viewpoints among a broad cross-section of experts (academic personnel, educational policymakers, sociologists, politicians, parents, and children).

Search for relevant information

The next step is the stage of the search for information.

You should focus on official sources, such as the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) , US Department Of Education , etc., but when it comes to objective representation of the situation that concerns students and their parents, you should not neglect less formal sources of information.

Look at official websites of schools throughout the US; find evidence backing up opinions from both camps, and don’t forget to keep neutrality of that point.

Create a thesis statement

Your thesis statement will be a focal point of your research. You should introduce it as early on as possible – all of your arguments will be built around this statement, supporting it with facts, statistics, tables and graphic evidence.

Possible variants of thesis statement for the topic of school uniform might be formulated as follows:

School uniforms provide a large number of both advantages and disadvantages, but they are largely believed to be beneficial for behavioral, motivational, and educational outcomes in school children. (In this statement, you demonstrate your bias towards school uniform implementation).

Generic school uniform is on the rise across the US, but it is questionable if the focus of authorities should be put on the superficial things rather than the core problems of the educational system, including financing problems – paradoxically, introducing uniforms is viewed as a financial burden by many parties involved. (Putting the problem this way outlines your inclination to disagree with the benefits of the trend).

Give your paper an outline

Create a layout for what is going to be your research papers, paying close attention to academic styles and other requirements demanded by your teacher and educational establishment.

Systematize the information you’ve found

Bring your notes in order, organizing them according to the part of research paper they are going to be used in, by the viewpoint that they are going to support, and by the type of information, they contain (statistics, facts, personal opinions of parties involved, etc.).

Create a draft

It is important to create a draft of your academic writing. While doing this, you will see that parts of your paper are redundant or some essential points are missing from it. Revise before you are ready to create the final manuscript.

During this part, you are required to present the final opinion you have formed on the topic of school uniform use in public schools.

Write the actual school uniform research

This is the final stage when your school uniform research paper is going to see the light. It is also the stage where you print your paper out, proofread it, and check the styles once again. When you are certain that the paper is written correctly, print out a fresh copy on a good quality paper, put it in a plastic file and hand it in.

School uniform research pros and cons paper: practical ideas

The problem of school uniforms is multifaceted; the polarized opinions have many in-between shades of arguments:

• educational

There is a wide range of factors to cover. Start by systematizing the information you have found on the topic by the sphere of life they pertain to.

Then give arguments for both sides of the debate, making it clear which side you are a supporter for in short conclusions recapping each set of arguments.

For instance, this is how you can approach the economical take on school uniforms:

Deborah Weinswig of Coresight Research pinpoints the aversion of students towards uniform in her research focusing on apparel spending statistics typical for, inter alia, adults with children of school age. Among the reasons cited against ubiquitous uniform adoption we find:

• outmodedness
• lack of individuality
• unbecoming styles
• poor customizability
• high costs (Weinswig)

The last item (high costs of uniforms) might appear controversial since some see the use of uniform actually be a relief on a parental budget (in the pro camp we find Carmon Nittegerg of Saraland Middle School ).

The arguments supporting uniform affordability are that it may be cheaper to shop for a set amount of mix-and-match pieces, which are on top of everything designed and tailored for wear and tear associated with weekly laundering and school environment, than laying out a neat sum of money for a more diversified and customized wardrobe.

Add into the equation the “fashion wars” typical for teenagers, and the parents’ stress is easily exposed to measure in hard dollars.

To that point, many schools practice “uniform swaps” and “gently used” uniform sales – for instance, St. Charles Borromeo Catholic School in Orlando, FL or Marymount School in New York City, NY .

It is not an unusual practice for educational establishments with standardized school uniform to provide measurable help for parents who struggle financially in a variety of ways.

Those who claim that acquisition of school uniform will put additional strain on low-income families appeal to standardized nature of uniforms that is there by definition, pointing out that a preset requirement for school apparel will zap any freedom of choice, making parents zero in on the outfit mandated by the school.

This seems like a legitimate concern, for if a school dictates a very particular set of pieces purchased from an official source, there is no overriding the impending cost of the academic wardrobe.

According to CostHelper Education , retailers charge between $25-$200 per piece and between $100 and $600 for the wardrobe in its entirety. The prices fluctuate based on quality, the prestige of retailer, style, etc. The options are very much limited by school requirements, though, making it a financial challenge in the majority of cases for families with a budget to consider.

Although there are ways to slightly cut down the cost of a school uniform set, the options seem to be limited.

On the other hand, buying a generic uniform fosters a levelled playfield for children from families with different income, takes teasing, bullying, and competitive behavior out of the equation.

In some scenarios, shopping for a mandatory set of clothes may be less expensive than striving to satiate the craving of a fashion-minded student.

Bottom Line

Research papers on school uniforms give rich grounds for honing your debating and academic research skills since this is an acutely contentious topic that can be viewed from a variety of standpoints.

By keeping your arguments logical, organized, and backed-up by official evidence, you will make your point in a meaningful way.

Do not be afraid to ask for professional help in proofreading and making your style more impactful so that your ideas are given a more resonant voice.

Want to try handing out your research paper about school uniform to a pro? We’ve got the best writers ready to take your order! Three clicks and you’re done…

Writing a Research Paper on Abortion

How To Write A Vivid Euthanasia Argumentative Essay?

Essays About Stereotyping – The Positive Side