Perception Versus Reality

American schools seem to be on the brink of a new fashion craze. The trendsetters are not movie stars or grunge rockers. They are school administrators, teachers, and the president of the United States, who, in his 1996 State of the Union message, declared that "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."

This endorsement was followed by the distribution of a U.S. Department of Education Manual on School Uniforms to every school district in the country, a presidential visit to the Long Beach (California) School District that pioneered public school uniform programs, and a presidential radio address touting "school uniforms [as] one step that may be able to help break [the] cycle of violence, truancy, and disorder...."

Increasing numbers of American public schools are requiring, or promoting, uniforms. Many resemble the ensembles worn by parochial and private school students. Others are less formal combinations of jeans and T-shirts imprinted with the school insignia. The educational press and on-line discussion groups for teachers and administrators are filled with testimonials to the impact of uniforms. Carl Cohn, superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District, claims that requiring uniforms in the elementary and middle school has led to results that he would not have believed possible.

"There has been an overall 36 percent reduction in school crime," says Cohn. "Fighting at the middle school level was reduced by 50 percent. Weapons were down. Assaults were down. Vandalism was down."

The Manual on School Uniforms includes an impressive list of "potential benefits": decreased violence, theft, and gang activity, and increased discipline and concentration on schoolwork. Teachers and administrators across the country echo this enthusiasm, adding increased attendance, a rise in student self-esteem, and a lessening of tensions produced by ethnic and income differences to the list.

The Effect of Attention

The question of whether uniforms are really responsible for the good effects attributed to them is still open. Superintendent Cohn admits that not enough is known to state with any certainty that uniforms were the primary factor in his district's recent achievements. "The single initiative that was systemwide K-8 was, in fact, uniforms," he says. "But I would never say we aren't doing other things. We are doing conflict resolution. We're doing peer mediation." The district also made a concerted effort to increase parent involvement in the schools.

Cohn also recognizes that the attention focused on his school system may be producing its own impact. "As all researchers know," he points out, "in the first year of an experiment, people's excitement about the attention can have a positive effect. Even before the president's visit, we had incredible media attention. From opening day in September, we had television cameras on campus. We have a whole bunch of parents who are much more enthusiastic about our school system because of the uniforms. The number of volunteers has increased. The philanthropic community has taken a much more active interest in our school system. It is really hard to know exactly what is producing the positive effect. We would like serious researchers to come in and find out."

Unfortunately, there has been little research on the subject. The District of Columbia was the site of one of the few studies done on the effects of uniforms. Eva Chunn, a researcher with the district's Program Assessment Branch, reported that some principals wanted uniforms because they believed "students were not attending school because they were ashamed of their clothes." A student that Chunn interviewed reported that this shame caused her to miss so much school that she was retained a year. The study did not produce any concrete evidence, however, that uniforms affected attendance, behavior, or academic achievement. It did reveal that "principals felt there was something about students in uniform, especially boys with ties, that makes them behave better"—a belief shared by teachers and parents.

This belief may provide a clue to what is really going on when students wear uniforms. Research in psychology suggests that uniforms create a "halo effect"—that is, no actual change in students' attitudes or behavior, but a change in the way adults perceive the uniformed students.

This change in adults' perceptions may well have its own effects on the students. A substantial body of research shows that teachers' perceptions of students influence the way teachers treat students—and, consequently, the way these students behave. Typically, this research has focused on inequities in the ways minority students are reported for disciplinary infractions, and teacher propensities to "teach to boys," especially in science and mathematics. But one researcher has looked specifically at the ways kids dress and found a significant halo effect.

Button-Down Bias

Dorothy Behling of Bowling Green University studied how student clothing affects teacher and student perceptions. Behling controlled for other characteristics (such as facial expression and ethnicity) that can affect personal perceptions by testing her subjects' reactions to photographs of models in which the faces were not visible.

Behling concluded that both teachers and students believe uniformed students are better behaved and more academically successful than students who do not wear uniforms. The fashions most favorably perceived by teachers and students were described as "preppy"—slacks, a button-down shirt, and a jacket or sweater for boys, and a similarly traditional style for girls. She found that "jeans, particularly if they are old beat-up jeans, are perceived in a very bad light by teachers in all our studies."

The halo effect could produce a self-fulfilling prophecy, as teachers and administrators adjust their disciplinary and grading standards to reflect the more positive image of uniformed students. Student behavior, in turn, could actually improve as a consequence of increased self-esteem and a greater willingness to attend a school where they feel valued—effects that the students, too, might attribute to the new uniforms.

Behling's findings have led her to become a "strong proponent of uniforms." She feels that the ability of uniforms to create a more positive perception of students regardless of their other physical traits can result in more equitable treatment by teachers and administrators. Not everyone agrees. Alfie Kohn, author of several books on educational psychology, maintains that teacher prejudice "is a problem that has to be addressed directly by working with teachers to confront the stereotypes they hold. Uniforms seem to be a way of circumventing, rather than solving, a problem. A teacher who treats students differently based on what they are wearing is a teacher who may bring to bear other equally irrational and counterproductive assumptions about gender and race."

To some educators, Kohn's objections are beside the point. They argue that even superficial changes in school climate and in teachers' expectations of students are better than nothing, and can provide a base on which more substantial reforms can be implemented.

Other objections to school uniforms have focused on their cost and the infringement of students' freedom of expression. Objections based on cost are usually overcome by providing low-cost or free uniforms to families that can't afford them. Most schools estimate that uniforms actually cost much less than the expensive footwear and jackets now in vogue among the nation's young.

Uniform proponents tend to dismiss self-expression as an issue. "I love to see variety expressed in dress, food, what-have-you," says Behling. "But I don't know that school is the place to do this." Superintendent Cohn of Long Beach points out that "schools have the kids about six hours a day. They have a lot of time in which to explore their individuality. Gangs and other negative peer groups also impose uniformity, and take freedom and individuality away from kids. Uniforms go a long way toward providing a neutral coat of arms for children whose clothing might otherwise make them targets. A uniform, if it provides a safe passage to and from school, is liberating."

Concealing the Truth

Alfie Kohn admits that the possibility that students' lives are saved by uniforms is a compelling argument. He says, however, that this claim has not been documented by research. And he believes that a better way to address issues of violence and safety is to engage students in thinking through the problem.

"Students are going to be better able to make decisions in life, to be participating members in a democracy, and to survive in perilous neighborhoods if they have been given the skills to make decisions and reach solutions," says Kohn. "Making students wear uniforms does not provide them with the resources they need to make their way through difficult places in difficult times." He also believes that uniforms conceal from students important truths about inequities of class and race, problems that may never be solved if we pretend they do not exist.

Even proponents of uniforms see some dangers. Dorothy Behling feels that teacher perceptions of clothing styles can create serious inequities in schools with voluntary uniform programs. There may be evidence for this in California, where state law forbids compulsory wearing of school uniforms. Some accounts indicate that students who "opt out" of uniform programs are reported for disciplinary infractions at much higher rates than uniformed students. At the Parkridge School for the Arts in Corona, for example, students who decline to wear the school uniform are referred to the office at a rate 22 times that of uniformed students.

It is difficult to predict how long uniforms will remain in vogue. "I've been amazed at how much interest this gets," says Howard Sloane, senior fellow at the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. "There are far more important educational issues. People are looking for easy solutions for difficult educational problems."

Many schools report that teacher, student, and parent interest in uniforms fades after a few years—perhaps as the luster of the new wears off, the expectations of long-term impact fail to be realized, and perceptions readjust and refocus on student attributes other than clothing. Even Superintendent Cohn reminds us that his district's experiment with uniforms is only one reflection of its search for higher standards, which encompasses goals of proven value, particularly parent and community support of and involvement in the schools. Only research and time will reveal whether school uniforms will be remembered as a valuable educational innovation or simply another chapter in the old story of the emperor's new clothes.

Marc Posner is a senior research associate at the Education Development Center in Newton, Massachusetts. He does not wear a uniform.