Brunsma, David L. (2004). The school uniform movement and what it tells you about American education. Scarecrow Press. [isbn: 157886125X] is held by the University of Melbourne Library, call number: UniM ERC 371.51 BRUN
Scientific School Uniform Research
The scientific research on
uniforms is just starting to come in. The following discusses a paper from The
Journal of Education Research (Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 53-62)
by David L. Brunsma from the University of Alabama and Kerry A. Rockquemore of
Notre Dame:
Effects of Student Uniforms on
Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement
This study showed that uniforms
did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic
achievement.
Click here to read the study for yourself.
Here's the abstract from their
study:
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
environments and student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of
commitment to school improvement and reform.
Brunsma and Rockquemore wanted to
investigate the extraordinary claims being made about how wonderful school
uniforms are, particularly from the Long Beach California. It was being claimed
that mandatory uniform policies were resulting in massive decreases (50 to 100
percent) in crime and disciplinary problems.
It is typically assumed, as exemplified in Long Beach, that uniforms are the
sole factor causing direct change in numerous behavioral and academic outcomes.
Those pronouncements by uniform proponents have raised strident objections and
created a political climate in which public school uniform policies have become
highly contested. The ongoing public discourse is not only entrenched in
controversy but also largely fueled by conjecture and anecdotal evidence.
Hence, it now seems critical that empirical analysis should be conducted to
inform the school uniform debate. In this study, we investigated the
relationship between uniforms and several outcomes that represent the core
elements of uniform proponent's claims. Specifically, we examined how a uniform
affects attendance, behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic
achievement. We believe that a thorough analysis of the arguments proposed by
uniform advocates will add critical insight to the ongoing debate on the
effects of school uniform policies. (Brunsma and Rockquemore, 1998, pg. 54)
The authors point out that if
uniforms work, they should see some of the following trends in schools with
uniforms:
1. Student
uniforms decrease substance use (drugs).
2. Student uniforms decrease behavioral problems.
3. Student uniforms increase attendance.
4. Student uniforms increase academic achievement.
They suspected that when other variables affecting these
four items were accounted for, it would be shown that uniforms were not the
cause for improvement.
How They Did Their Study
They used data from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and three follow-up studies.
These studies tracked a national sample of eighth graders (in 1988) from a wide
variety of public and private schools and followed their academic careers
through college. Some of the data collected in the studies included uniform
policies, student background (economic and minority status), peer group
(attitudes towards school and drug use), school achievement, and behavioral
characteristics (how often did each student get into trouble, fights ,
suspensions, etc.). The authors concentrated on data from the students 10th
grade year.
Some of the independent variables they considered were sex, race, economic
status, public or private school, academic or vocational "tracking",
rural or urban district, peer proschool attitudes, academic preparedness, the
student's own proschool attitudes, and most importantly, whether or not the
students wore uniforms. The researchers wanted to determine if there was a tie
between these variables and desirable behavior by the students. The areas that
they were looking for improvement as a result of the previous variables
included reduced absenteeism, fewer behavioral problems, reduced illegal drug
use, and improved standardized test scores. The researchers considered this
second group of variables to be the dependent variables. The goal of their
study was to determine if there was any relationship between the independent
variables (particularly uniforms) and the dependent variables.
The authors took all of the data
for these variables from the NELS:88 study and performed a regression analysis
to see if any of the independent variables were predictors of any of the
dependent variables. If there was a strong tie in the data between any two variables
( uniforms and absenteeism, for example), it would show up in the study as a
correlation coefficient close to 1 or -1. A correlation coefficient near 0
indicates no relationship between the two variables. So, if wearing uniforms
had a large effect on behavior, we would expect to see a correlation
coefficient of say 0.5 between uniforms and measures of good behavior. If we
see a very low correlation coefficient between these two, then we know that
wearing uniforms has no real effect on behavior.
Results
The only positive result for
uniforms that the study showed was a very slight relationship between uniforms
and standardized achievement scores. The correlation coefficient was 0.05,
indicating a very slight possible relationship between the two variables, but
showing that uniforms are a very poor predictor of standardized test scores and
that the relationship is much weaker than has been indicated in the uniform
debate. Notice that 0,05 is much closer to 0 than to 1. Other than this one
weak, possible relationship, uniforms struck out. In the authors own words:
Student uniform use was not
significantly correlated with any of the school commitment variables such as
absenteeism, behavior, or substance use (drugs). In addition, students wearing
uniforms did not appear to have any significantly different academic
preparedness, proschool attitudes, or peer group structures with proschool
attitudes than other students. Moreover, the negative correlations between the
attitudinal variables and the various outcomes of interest are significant;
hence, the predictive analysis provides more substantive results.
In other words, the authors saw
no relationship between wearing uniforms and the desirable behavior (reduced
absenteeism, reduced drug usage, improved behavior). They did, however, see a
strong relationship between academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and
peers having proschool attitudes and the desirable behaviors. Furthermore, they
saw no relationship between wearing uniforms and the variables that do predict
good behavior (academic preparedness, proschool attitudes, and peers having
proschool attitudes).
Conclusion
Based upon this analysis, the
authors were forced to reject the ideas that uniforms improved attendance
rates, decreased behavioral problems, decreased drug use, or improved academic
achievement. The authors did find that proschool attitudes from students and
their peers and good academic preparedness did predict the desired behavior.
They saw that wearing uniforms did not lead to improvements in proschool
attitudes or increased academic preparation.
References
David L. Brunsma, D.L. and
Rockquemore, K.A. (1998) Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance,
Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement, The Journal of Education Research Volume 92, Number 1, Sept./Oct. 1998,
pp. 53-62