Should Students Wear School Uniforms

Should Students Wear School Uniforms
The issue of what student should wear to class has created controversial opinions. What seemed to a simple problem is becoming political. People are becoming opinionated, and in the process of debating, offenses emanate. The debate is argued based on the safety issue, student rights issue and the problem of fostering national unity. The problems relating to dress codes in schools have been discussed in classes, boardrooms, and even courtrooms. However, there has not been an authentic way to proceed over the issues. This study explores various views regarding school uniforms it also examines the advantages and demerits of the issues involved. Finally, this study recommends principles that may assist policy makers in developing better guidelines and acceptable parameters for school uniforms.
Origin of uniforms in schools
The introduction of standardized clothing in academic centers can trace back in 1222 in England. The archbishop recommended an outfit, which looks like robes for students. Earlier in the US school, uniforms were only used in private schools except for public boarding institutes for Native Americans. Eventually, advocacy for school uniforms began as teachers suggested that the attires controlled student behaviors. In 1996, Bill Clinton delivered a speech advocating for school uniforms in Congress (Mitchell N.P). He continued the campaigns for school uniforms to 1998 when Phil Graham accused Bill of intrusive politics (Schwartz 769 – 809).

The following are arguments that are common in the arguments.
Opponents and proponents of school uniforms both cite the origin of the idea. The debates focused on the background suggest that school existed earlier before the uniforms. Opponents suggest that uniforms are minor issues that do not contribute to school performance or aid in passing examinations. Proposing ideology emphasizes on the identity and pride of school, based on uniforms. The proposers insist that school uniforms wiped gang colors in schools and reduced violent behaviors in schools.
Policy pointing to offensive dress code
Some of the reasons provided by decision makers in schools suggest that uniforms minimize chances of students coming to class with offensive messages on their T. shirts. Some of the messages in casual dresses are racially offensive. Some contain explicit literature (in texts and pictures) that people consider immoral and embarrassing. Other written contents promote religious intolerance. For the moral reason, people argue that uniforms reduce the instances where students would be too liberal to wear offensive attires.
On the contrary, policy makers on uniform have been accused of offending minority groups (Gereluk, 648). For example, according to Gereluk (648-650), the French banning of religiously symbol clothes is an offensive move towards Islamic belief and practices. If such laws would be used in educational institutions, then education would be a means promoting social intolerances. Such regulations should consider the values that Islamic women have on niqabs. In this instance, Gereluk points that the use of uniforms violates freedom of expressions. The politics surrounding school uniforms drew attentions of several experts including psychologists. The experts concluded that uniforms have both positive impacts and negative impacts. However, it was never concluded which side of the results overweighs the other.
Advocating for reduction negative peer pressure and bullying
Apparently, students in the class are not always of the same social status. Some would wear expensive clothes while others would put on attires that may be termed cheap. Uniforms, however, bring uniformity and control the disparity that may exist in clothing fashion. Bill Clinton in his campaigns mentioned that a uniform reduces student fights over expensive jackets. Bill’s argument also suggests that student is likely to concentrate I their academics than on their attires when in conventional clothes. Furthermore, cases proceed that uniforms would reduce alienations and bully based on social class.
Opponents of the idea object that uniforms cannot regulate student behavior nor reduce bullying in school. Studies by the “Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management” suggest that cases of indiscipline heightened by 12% upon the introduction of school uniforms (Manning 69-98). Studies indicate that students in boarding schools steal clothes from each other on the hanging lines because they attires are similar in color and texture. Parents blame the loss on the academic insistence on the uniforms, which are difficult to trace. Ideas suggest that bullying not only comes from social perception but also from mental disorders, which cannot be regulated by school uniforms.
Individuality and conformity ideas
Opponents of school uniforms point that the policy suppresses an individual personality to compromise with group ideas (Caruso, 83-88). The idea of suggesting standard attire for a group of people is viewed as containing people to conform to situations, which are not always healthy. Various arguments suggest that students learn to conform to policies instead of questioning the benefit of the system. Furthermore, different discussion point that students give in to peer pressure because the education system has been teaching them to conform to policies. The battles over uniforms have also reached the courtrooms. Freedom of individual expression in attire under school policies are the decision of the Supreme Court following the first amendment. In most court cases, the court looked at the impact of attire towards learning. However, private schools have the legal grounds to forbid or not ban students from wearing uniforms.
Incremental cost of the policy
Various opponents suggest that the cost of maintaining the policy is high and unnecessary. Parents who had the promise of free school education suggest that the cost they incur in purchasing uniforms is economically strenuous. There are unconfirmed speculations that business people could be pushing for school uniforms for their financial prosperity. Proposers of school uniforms also argue that the idea is cost-effective on a parent who cannot keep up with buying new clothes every time there is a new taste in fashion. Radical against uniforms also be argue that school spends so much in maintaining policies rather than concentrating on academic performance. However, none of these ideas has been proven correct or contrary. The conviction comes from the speaker’s eloquence and persuasiveness. The ideas from either side of the argument cannot be used to make a justified decision to work for all the institutions as a law.
Policy makers seem to be in a dilemma over what to do especially because the debate keeps recurring. There is a possibility that the discussion would continue distracting school programs and other national policies. Because all the ideas from both the opposing sides and the proposing sides have strong backups, it is difficult for policymakers to support one of the groups and dismiss the other without violating rights and the rule of law.
My view on the subject presented also varies depending on the points agued. I believe that the level of education and the type of the Institute are the factors to consider regarding the policy. Naturally, university students are not expected to wear uniforms because the majority of the students are adults who shift from the places of work and go directly to class. As for the private institutions, there should be no debate on whether students would have to wear uniforms. It is the private schools choice. Furthermore, the school management always enforces the policies and not the parents or students. After all, students and relatives sign agreements and are informed of the school policies before the enrolment. In this sense, it is the choice of a student or the parent to where you send your child to school.
The debate on the uniform is way above taking sides; it is important to consider the sensitive factors underlying the school attires if they are to be forbidden or enforced. Gereluk pointed in her article that these factors should be deemed to decide on what is permissible on school uniforms.
Health and safety concerns
Policy makers should be open to accommodate clothes that are protecting he children. For example, during winter, policy should advocate for warm clothes in school. Policies that don not support on weather friendly attires must be questioned even if the policy involves a private institution.
Inhibiting the school goals
The freedom of expression must not suppress other people’s freedom. If an individual insists on putting attire that prohibits learning, either by diverting students ’attention or causing a nuisance; such individual rights of expression must be limited (Gereluk, 648).
Oppressive clothes
If the uniform oppresses minority group in a public institution, then the policy makers ought to consider the minority rights. For instance, if the uniform would suppress an individual’s belief, then the system ought to be examined on the originality and the available exemptions for minority groups.
Schools are centers of learning and interactions. The majority of schools have students from different culture background. Schools should teach children to live together despite their difference. The debates must not be politicized to disrupt regular learning in schools. Concentrating on the differences only shift the focuses and goals of education centers. It is important that do be objective on the issue involved.

Work Cited
Caruso, P. “Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms.” NASSP Bulletin 80.581 (1996): 83-88. Web
GERELUK, DIANNE. “What Not To Wear: Dress Codes and Uniform Policies in the Common School.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41.4 (2007): 643-657. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
Manning, T. “Rebel With A Cause: A School Board Member Calls For Reform In Miami-Dade County Public Schools”. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 14.3 (2011): 69-98. Web.
Schwartz, Robin. “Predicting The Loss Of Constitutional Rights And Civil Liberties In The Name Of National Security”. SSRN Electronic Journal 5.3 (2004): 769 809. Web.