Does Requiring Students to Wear Uniforms Reduce Violence in Secondary School?

School violence is a very real and ever increasing problem. Administrators, teachers and parents are constantly searching for a concrete way to curb this trend and make our public schools safer for both students and staff. One solution that has been touted lately is to require students to wear uniforms. While this might seem like a viable option and early attempts seemed promising, little empirical evidence has been collected that supports the reduction of violence by merely requiring students to conform to a standard of dress.

No one disputes the fact that our public schools have become increasingly more dangerous for both staff and students. And although most schools are still one of the safest places our children can spend their time, violent behavior is on the rise. This is not only true in our inner-city schools, but also in our suburban and rural schools. While cases of violence has been evidenced in elementary school for the purpose of this paper I will focus on secondary schools, both middle and high schools. According to Daniel J. Flannery and Mark I. Singer (1999) violence takes many forms, “As children grow older, into middle school, violent behavior can become more serious, characterized by bullying, extortion, and physical fighting.” (Pg. 2) It is with this in mind that many districts across the country are suggesting the addition of school uniforms as one solution to the growing problem.

The first large school district, Long Beach Unified School District, in California reported some very encouraging results when they implemented a school uniform policy in 1994. “In the first year of the mandatory uniform policy in Long Beach, school officials reported that fighting decreased by more than 50%, assault and battery by 34%, sex offences by 74%, robbery by 66%, suspensions by 32%, and reduction of vandalism by 18%.” (Kathleen Kiley Wade and Mary E. Stafford, Arizona State University, 2003) These early findings were so impressive that President Clinton referred to these statistics in his 1996 State of the Union Address and prompted him to instruct the U.S. Department of Education to issue 1996’s Manual on School Uniforms. This “Manual” strongly supports the use of uniforms as an antidote for fixing what’s wrong in our public schools. It declares that uniforms can be instrumental in, “decreasing violence and theft-even life threatening situations-among students over designer clothing or expensive sneakers” (Manual on School Uniforms.)

While I would be the first to admit that we should try anything that works to combat violence in our schools evidence is strongly overwhelming that students feel that requiring them to wear uniforms does little to assail the pervasiveness of violent behavior they face on a daily basis. And since students do not perceive uniforms as making much difference on the negative behavior they encounter, it is unlikely that requiring uniforms will have a significant impact on reducing incidences of violence in middle and high schools. Perhaps, younger children can be convinced that wearing a uniform will make them part of the group. They enjoy fitting in and conforming to the larger whole.