RMLE Online

Research in Middle Level Education

ISSN: (Print) 1940-4476 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umle20

School Uniforms: Policies and Procedures

Catherine Stockton, David E. Gullatt & D. Randall Parke

To cite this article: Catherine Stockton, David E. Gullatt & D. Randall Parke
(2002) School Uniforms: Policies and Procedures, RMLE Online, 25:1, 1-13, DOI:
10.1080/19404476.2002.11658154

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2002.11658154

Published online: 08 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6048

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umle20
RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

RMLE
David Hough, Ph.D., Editor
Online
Research in
Middle Level Education

Missouri State University

Springfield, Missouri

2002 • Volume 25 • Number 1 ISSN 1084-8959

School Uniforms: Policies and Procedures

Catherine Stockton
Louisiana Tech University
Ruston, Louisiana

David E. Gullatt
Louisiana Tech University
Ruston, Louisiana

D. Randall Parke
Louisiana Tech University
Ruston, Louisiana

Citation: Stockton, C., & Gullatt, D. E. (2002). School uniforms: Policies and procedures. Research in Middle
Level Education Online, 25(1). Retrieved [date], from
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx

Abstract

This research summary addresses both student and teacher perceptions about the importance, value, and level
of implementation of school uniform use in the Bossier Parish School District in Louisiana. Summative data
are also used to investigate the relationship of uniform use with evidence of both improved student academic
gain and school learning climate. Participants in the study included 1,680 students and 285 teachers in the
above north Louisiana public school district composed of 16,000 students and 1,250 teachers.

Nine schools were selected for data gathering purposes representing all segments of the population of students
and teachers. Schools selected for this study had the same principal as the year prior and identified no signifi-
cant changes in school policy affecting discipline or attendance since the previous year. The only difference in
the school was the fact that school uniforms were mandated for all students in the present year as opposed to
the previous year.

A perception questionnaire was utilized to collect data from stratified random samples of students and all
teachers in the above schools. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and ANOVA with
Scheffé Post Hoc analysis. Data indicated that the perceived importance of school uniforms varied significant-
ly between the types of schools (elementary, middle, and secondary schools).

The perceived implementation of school uniforms varied significantly between types of schools. Students per-
ceived the level of implementation to be greater for elementary and middle schools than they did for second-
ary schools. Student achievement improved at the middle and secondary schools and attendance improved at
the secondary schools.
________________________________

© 2002 National Middle School Association 1

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

Introduction

Historically, school officials were viewed as acting in loco parentis in their management and discipline of stu-
dent behavior and appearance. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969), that school officials were state actors whose discipline of stu-
dents was constrained by the federal Constitution. The Tinker case established the right of students to freedom
of expression in school unless the exercise of that right would materially and substantially interfere with the
requirements of appropriate discipline or collide with the rights of others in the school (Majestic, 1991). In a
dissent opinion for the Tinker (1969) case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black warned against the conse-
quences of inserting the judiciary into decisions of student discipline:

If the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, kindergarten, grammar schools, or high
schools, can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it
is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary.
(p. 518)

Now, more than three decades after the Tinker case, there appears to be a nationwide trend by public school
officials to adopt stricter dress and grooming codes even to include the requirement that specific uniforms be
worn (School Uniforms, 1997; Wingert, 1999). School officials give various reasons for this change. Many
believe stricter dress requirements set a tone that has been missing in some public schools in recent years, one
of respect and seriousness of purpose. Other school administrators, often with parent and student support,
argue that students have grown so fashion conscious that they are distracted from their studies with thoughts
about clothing. These administrators further state that popular clothing has become so expensive that families
are becoming economically squeezed by peer pressure to dress as others do. Additional educational leaders
are adopting policies that aim at specific evils, such as gang membership and student drug involvement, by
prohibiting the wearing of certain attire or insignia that identify gang members (Woods & Ogletree, 1992;
Hamilton, 1999).

Regulation of Student Appearance

Most of the reported litigation challenging school regulation of student appearance has involved hair length
restrictions. Very few have dealt with student dress per se. The U.S. Federal Circuit Courts have split over the
authority of school officials to dictate hair length and style. The Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh U.S.
Federal Circuit Courts have generally upheld the authority of school officials to impose reasonable grooming
requirements. The First, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held to the contrary that student hair length
regulations were unconstitutional. The courts that held for the schools and/or school officials often dismissed
the cases, finding no constitutional rights involved. In one of its early hair length decisions, the U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals quite bluntly held that a right "to wear one's hair in a public high school in the
length and style that suits the wearer," simply cannot be found "within the plain meaning of the Constitution"
(Kerr v. Schmidt, 1972, p. 613).

The pro-student cases, on the other hand, found protection in several constitutional provisions including the
First Amendment (speech and expression), Ninth Amendment (denial of other rights not enumerated in the
U.S. Constitution), and Fourteenth Amendment (actions affecting citizens by the states) to the U.S.
Constitution (Brown v. Kabl, 1969). Many of the above court decisions appeared to be influenced by the
Tinker case decision, but instead of focusing on whether the appearance in question amounted to speech, the
courts looked at whether the appearance would be substantially disruptive and found it would not be. Often
the above courts would require that a school district show that the regulation was necessary to fulfill the
school's educational purpose. It is anticipated that similar court rulings involving student dress cases will par-
allel the logic presented by the courts in hair length decisions (Zirkel, 1998).

© 2002 National Middle School Association 2

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

School Uniforms and School Climate

A school's business and responsibility is to teach and to provide wholesome, safe experiences for its students
and employees. With the nationwide increase in school violence and truancy, school officials are beginning to
view student discipline as a teaching opportunity (King, 1998; Natale, 1993). School authorities are arguing
that the student discipline techniques of the past are not as effective as schools approach the 21st century
(Official: New Caddo Policy, 1997). To provide a safe school, school administrators are approaching school
discipline with interventions that work long-term (DeMitchell, Fossey, & Cobb, 2000). One intervention
presently being considered to assist with suppressing public school violence is the school-wide use of a stan-
dardized student uniform. School officials and school board members are beginning to see the connection
between justification of school uniforms to increase safety and the rational basis test set established in Kelley
in relation to the school’s educational purpose (Pickles, 2000). From the Washington White House to the local
schoolhouse, data collection is beginning concerning the use of school uniforms as a mechanism to draw
attention away from student differences and social groups and to focus concentration and energy toward learn-
ing with a shared vision of expectation of success.

Caruso (1996) stated that when school authorities consider whether or not to implement a school uniform pol-
icy, they need to understand the validity of each proponent’s arguments, both pro and con. In other words, do
school uniforms make a difference or not in the local school setting? Numerous reasons can be supplied to
argue for school uniforms as an aid for the school to achieve its educational purpose: (a) to increase school
attendance, (b) to lessen distractions, (c) to increase student self-confidence and esteem, (d) to produce esprit
de corps among students, (e) to decrease clothing costs, (f) to improve classroom behavior, and (g) to remove
some causes of crime, violence, and gang activity. With all the above reasons for school uniforms, it seems
unusual there could be an equal number of reasons to rebut the use of such clothing.

The following arguments are, however, posed by parents and various advocacy groups against the use of
school uniforms: (a) they infringe U.S. First Amendment rights for students, (b) administrators overuse the
uniform as a power tool, and (c) they create a cause of economic hardship for some parents. In addition, some
researchers state that the use of school uniforms: (a) does not deter violence and gang activity, (b) does not
deter social classes among students, and (c) has not been statistically proven to accomplish anything since
valid and reliable testing has not been accomplished (Caruso, 1996). Parents are making use of the Internet to
solicit support for their cause and to advertise their positions (CPR, 2001).

National Trends Addressing School Uniforms

In 1996, the U.S. Department of Education released a 6-page guideline document to public schools interested
in school uniform policies. The guidelines were ordered by then President Bill Clinton, who strongly encour-
aged dress codes in his presidential campaign of 1996 (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). In the name of
putting discipline and learning back into our schools, President Clinton distributed the school uniform manu-
als, entitled Manual on School Uniform, to the nation's 16,000 school districts advising them how they could
legally enforce a public school uniform policy.

A safe and disciplined learning environment is the first requirement of a good school. Young people who are
safe and secure and who learn basic American values and the essentials of good citizenship are better stu-
dents. In response to growing levels of violence in the nation’s schools, many parents, teachers, and school
officials have come to see school uniforms as one positive and creative way to reduce discipline problems and
increase school safety (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). They observed that the adoption of school uni-
form policies could promote school safety, improve discipline, and enhance the learning environment. The
potential benefits of school uniforms include:

1. Decreasing violence and theft, even threatening situations, among students over designer clothing
or expensive sneakers.

© 2002 National Middle School Association 3

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

2. Helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school.
3. Instilling students with discipline.
4. Helping parents and students resist peer pressure.
5. Helping students concentrate on their work.
6. Helping school officials recognize intruders who come to the school. (p. 1)

As a result of the above philosophy and apart from any legislative or State Department of Education mandate,
many local communities are deciding to adopt public school uniform policies as part of an overall program to
improve school safety and discipline and as a means to encourage academic gain through creating a more
wholesome school climate. As a result of awareness of the public concern about public school uniforms, leg-
islative bodies in California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah, and
Virginia have allowed local initiatives to address the issue. Many large public school systems, including
Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans,
and Seattle, have schools with either voluntary or mandatory uniform policies mostly in elementary and mid-
dle schools. Other schools have implemented dress codes to encourage a safe environment by, for example,
prohibiting clothes with certain language or gang colors.

Developing Uniform Use Policy at the School Level

Schools can play a major role in developing strategies to address problems related to school dress. Many pub-
lic school officials have established dress codes that prescribe or prohibit certain clothing or grooming prac-
tices (White, 2000). Others have begun to require that students wear uniforms. Public school policies regard-
ing dress codes and uniforms vary from district to district. For example, the Baltimore (MD) City Public
School System is explicit in setting standards, while public schools in Chicago, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C.
defer decisions regarding appearance to individual school principals, teachers, students, and parents (Essex,
2001; Woods & Ogletree, 1992).

School districts that have implemented a uniform dress code policy have put forth efforts to articulate a valid
educational purpose for their actions. By all accounts the use of uniforms have been most successful where
school officials have solicited active parental involvement in the decision-making. Uniforms were introduced
over a decade ago with some measure of success in the elementary grades where there is the least level of
resistance by students (Majestic, 1991). Younger students are not likely to demand to express themselves
through clothing, and this is a good place to incubate positive values and attitudes about school.

School Climate and Uniform Policy

School safety and school effectiveness have been found to be strongly linked (Hartwig & Ruesch, 1994; West,
Bomba, & Elmore, 1999). Research has found that schools that are effective and have a positive climate are
characterized by the following: (a) a people-centered belief and value system, (b) specific procedures for con-
ducting the business of schooling, (c) definite rules, (d) clear and fair regulations, and (e) well-known policies
(Gullatt, 1994). Research on effective schools "has emphasized the need for an orderly and safe school environ-
ment to allow for productive instruction" (Golden, 1993, p. 12). To achieve an effective, positive climate that
also results in a safe school, the educational leader must engage in systematic and precise planning of necessary
procedures. This type of planning is essential to maintain order and create an environment conducive to learn-
ing. In an attempt to curb school violence, public schools around the country have begun using dress codes and
uniforms. As with the student hair length issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality
of school uniform policies. Administrators must presently rely on the logic presented in the rational basis test
found in the Kelley (1976) decision for guidance on uniform and student dress issues (Starr, 2000).

Throughout the past decade, many discussions about school uniforms have surfaced. Proponents of uniforms
claim that uniforms give students higher self-esteem and prevent behavioral troubles. However, many students
feel uniforms take away their right to express themselves (Zirkel, 1998). King (1996) offered a positive out-

© 2002 National Middle School Association 4

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

come from uniform policies. He stated that by requiring students to wear uniforms, administrators were
diminishing the student's ability to display gang emblems and offer students a sense of unity. An increase of
focus on school related efforts such as discipline and organization advanced learning. Lipson (1996) called on
the need for politicians to make mandatory school uniforms a reality. He reported that uniforms would require
a standardized student appearance so that students would start respecting themselves and take pride in what
they did. On the other hand, Howe (1996) reflected on what he called the folly of the dress code solution for
school violence. He stated that the school uniform carries with it a burden of negative messages along with its
positive implications. He cautioned that student creativity and individuality are diminished by the standardiza-
tion of dress.

The ACLU and School Uniforms

In an editorial to the Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram, Karin Polacheck, LBUSD Board President boasts of
the school district’s use of school uniforms to improve its schools’ effectiveness with 11 pilot schools servicing
8,000 students. She states that principals and teachers tell of student success taking many forms such as fewer
absences, fewer tardies, fewer truancies, fewer referrals to the office for discipline problems, fewer suspensions
and expulsions, better grades and, in some cases, significantly higher achievement (Polacheck, 1995).

The Public Education Department of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been critical of the
boasted successes of the Long Beach California School District (Siegel, 1996). In a response to the question,
"Are uniforms a good idea," the ACLU states that nobody knows. With reference to the Long Beach school
system, Siegel states that other discipline measures were also incorporated in addition to the new school uni-
form use. He further states that more teachers were assigned to hall duty. These items tend to cloud the offi-
cial message that uniforms are the cause of positive changes within the school district. Also, Siegel points out
that the Long Beach experiment addressed elementary and middle schoolers and not the teenager population
mentioned by President Clinton in his State of the Union address in 1997. Siegel finally states that there are
presently no empirical studies to show that uniforms consistently produce positive changes in student behavior
over the long run. He states that at best, school uniform policies are purely experimental.

The ACLU recently conducted a series of focus groups and discussions with high school students and asked
what they thought would help in reducing school violence (Siegel, 1996). They responded:

1. Since school violence mirrors that of society at large, schools should seriously confront and dis-
cuss issues of racism and cultural conflict.
2. Safe corridor programs should be supported to protect the safety of students as they go to and
from school.
3. School entrances should be secured.
4. More extracurricular activities and clubs should be established.
5. Open-mike assemblies should be held on a regular basis to give students the opportunity to
express themselves.
6. Programs to help students find part-time jobs should be established.
7. Conflict resolution techniques should be taught. (p. 1)

The ACLU advocates that attention to the above items would be more in line as a cure for the ailments of pub-
lic education than the incorporation of school uniforms as a fix-all. In addition, sporadic incidents such as a stu-
dent being sent home because she was missing a belt have led to the ACLU donating belts for schools requiring
students to wear them (ACLU, 2001). In summary, the ACLU takes the position that no evidence exists to pro-
vide a clear and convincing case that school uniforms do anything for a school except take away individual
freedoms for the involved students. Thus, this research project began as an avenue to gather data from a school
district that has done little more than implement a mandatory school uniform policy for its students. The
researchers were careful to control additional variables such as a new administrator’s philosophy at a school, an
improved and newly implemented student discipline plan, or additional school security officers being added to

© 2002 National Middle School Association 5

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

a school. All schools selected in the present research project maintained the same school leader with the same
discipline rules, and no additional security officers as compared with the previous school year.

National Findings About School Uniform

Gullatt (1999) reports data from all 50 State Departments of Education showing no specific state legislative
act or State Department of Education mandate addressing student dress code in the nation's elementary, mid-
dle, or secondary public schools. He also states that no State Department of Education reported any legislative
statute or educational mandate requiring the use of any student uniform in the nation’s public schools;
although, 42 state officials reported that local school districts had the authority to establish site-specific dress
codes that were acceptable in their schools. This authority was provided by the state legislature in the form of
a statute stating that each local school district had the authority to make rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the educational mission set by its school board. Gullatt also surveyed Louisiana school district
superintendents finding that officials from all 66 Louisiana public school districts representing 650 secondary
schools and 797 elementary schools educating 786,000 school students had differing ways to address the pub-
lic school uniform issue. His data revealed that 42 local school districts actively monitored, through an
approval process, the student dress codes set within the schools of their jurisdiction. Forty of the districts
monitored dress codes affecting all students within their school district while only two districts monitored cer-
tain grade ranges, elementary, middle and high school grades, only.

The Bossier Parish School Uniform Policy Story

The 1997 Louisiana Legislature gave each of the 66 school districts in Louisiana the authority to develop and
implement appropriate rules governing school uniform use. The Bossier Parish School Board adopted such
rules for implementation during the 1998-1999 school system provided at least 75% of parents in the local
school district approved the change to uniforms. About half the schools in the Bossier system initiated a
mandatory school uniform policy for 1998-1999. The school board then decided that the remaining schools
would implement the mandatory uniform policy for 1999-2000, thus covering the entire school district with a
blanket uniform policy. The policy did not allow for an “opt out” but did allow for parents with hardship cases
to receive financial help for uniform purchases. This was the first public school district in the nation to take
such a bold step in determining the dress code of its population of 18,000 (Bossier Parish School Board, 1998).

A suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Bossier Parish during the 1999-2000 term alleging violation of
freedom of speech (as a manner of dress) under the U.S. Constitution. The case was decided in favor of the
school board and was promptly appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the finding was again
in favor of the local school board.

Purpose of Study

Data from this study answered the research question: What are the student and teacher perceptions about the
importance, value, and level of implementation of school uniform use in the Bossier Parish School District in
Louisiana?

To determine whether the purpose of this study was fulfilled, the following null hypotheses were tested:

1. There was no significant difference in the value of uniforms as perceived by students in elemen-
tary, middle, or high school.
2. There was no significant difference in perceived value of uniforms between students and teachers
3. There was no significant difference in the level of importance of implementation method used as
perceived by students in elementary, middle, or high school.
4. There was no significant difference in the level of importance of implementation method used as
perceived by teachers.

© 2002 National Middle School Association 6

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

5. There was no significant difference in the perceived level of importance of implementation

method used between students and teachers.
6. There was no significant difference in student achievement between students who wore uniforms
and students who did not wear uniforms.
7. There was no significant difference in student attendance between students who wore uniforms
and students who did not wear uniforms.

Data Analysis

Students (n = 1, 680) and teachers (n = 285) completed researcher constructed surveys. A member of the
research team hand delivered surveys to each school. Nine public schools located in northwestern Louisiana
were purposively selected for this study. The students were stratified and randomly sampled by the building
administrator. The building administrator extended the opportunity for all faculty members to complete the
survey. After a two-week period, a member of the research team collected student and faculty surveys. Data
on academic achievement and attendance were collected from the nine schools’ 1998-1999 and 1999-2000
School Report Cards for Parents issued by the Louisiana Department of Education and from the school dis-
trict’s central office.

Data from the surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test and ANOVA with
Scheffe` post hoc analysis. Students perceived the level of importance to be greater for elementary and middle
schools than they did for high schools. Therefore, the null hypothesis: there was no significant difference in
the value of uniforms as perceived by students in elementary, middle, or high school was rejected. Teachers
had a higher perception of the value of uniforms than did students. Accordingly, the null hypothesis that there
was no significant difference in perceived value of uniforms between students and teachers was rejected.

Data for the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference in the level of importance of implementa-
tion method used as perceived by students in elementary, middle or high school show that students perceived
the level of implementation to be greater for the elementary and middle schools than they did for high
schools. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Teachers perceived few items of implementation were to be more important in one type of school than anoth-
er. Therefore the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference in the level of implementation
method used as perceived by teachers was accepted.

Teachers perceived most items to be more important regarding implementation of uniforms than did students.
Therefore the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference in the perceived level of importance of
implementation method used between students and teachers was rejected.

Data from school report cards indicated that student achievement improved at both middle schools and at only
one elementary school. No statistical differences were found. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no
significant difference in student achievement between students who wore uniforms and students who did not
wear uniforms was accepted.

Student attendance did improve at all of the secondary schools (n = 4) in this study. Attendance at the middle
(n = 2) and elementary (n = 3) schools remained unchanged. The null hypothesis that there was no significant
difference in student attendance between students who wore uniforms and students who did not wear uni-
forms was rejected.

The research question, "What are the student and teachers perceptions about the importance, value, and level
of implementation of school uniform use in Bossier Parish School District in Louisiana?" data indicated that
the perceived importance of school uniforms varied significantly among the types of schools (elementary,
middle, and secondary schools). The perceived implementation of school uniforms varied significantly among

© 2002 National Middle School Association 7

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

the types of schools. Both students and teachers had a higher perception of the importance of uniforms than
the implementation of uniforms.

Summary and Conclusions

The social and political climate has grown more conservative since the 1960s. The right to engage in symbolic
speech on matters of public concern is still protected under the rule in Tinker, however, a student’s more gen-
eral interest in expressing himself through his appearance will be accorded minimal constitutional protection.

The issue of use of uniforms is not as clear-cut as either side would like to believe. In deciding whether or not
to implement a school uniform policy, schools must juggle two ideals of justice that are apparently in conflict:
a student's right to freedom of expression and the need for a safe, focused, positive school environment.

Research shows that school districts choosing to implement a student uniform policy should tailor these
efforts around a valid educational purpose, one that furthers the local educational mission. By all accounts, the
use of uniforms has been most successful where school officials have solicited active parental involvement in
the decision-making. Research shows that most often uniforms are being introduced in the elementary grades,
perhaps because this is the path of least resistance, where the students are less likely to express themselves
through clothing, or because it is the best place to inculcate positive values and attitudes about school.

References

ACLU. (2001, March 22). ACLU responds with humor. . . Available: http://aclu.org/news/2001/n032002c.html

Bossier Parish School Board. (1998). Policy manual. Bossier City, LA: Author.

Brown v. Kabl, 419 F. 2d 1034 (7th Circuit 1969).

Caruso, P. (1996). Individuality vs. conformity: The issue behind school uniforms. NASSP Bulletin, 80(2),
83-88.

Citizens for Parental Rights [CPR]. (2001). The truth about uniforms. Available:
http://www.cprlafatette.com/thetruth.html

DeMitchell, T., Fossey, R., & Cobb, C. (2000). Dress codes in the public schools: Principals, policies, and
precepts. Journal of Law and Education, 29(1), 31-49.

Essex, N. (2001). School uniforms: Guidelines for principals. Principal, 80(30), 38-39.

Golden, D. (1993). Discipline of students with disabilities: A decision-making model for principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 77(1) , 12-20.

Gullatt, D. (1994). The effective schools model: Assistance for any school. American Secondary Education,
68(4), 53-57.

Gullatt, D. (1999). Rationales and strategies for amending the school dress code to accommodate student uni-
forms. American Secondary Education, 27(4), 39-47.

Hamilton, K. (1999). Implementing a school uniform policy. Principal, 79(2), 46-47.

Hartwig, E., & Ruesch, G. (1994). Discipline in the school. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

© 2002 National Middle School Association 8

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

Howe, H. (1996). School uniforms: Leaning toward the Spartans and away from the Athenians. Education
Week, 15(28), 52.

Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976).

Kerr v. Schmidt, 460 F. 2d 609 (5th Circuit 1972).

King, J. (1996). Uniforms as a safety measure. American School and University, 68(6), 11.

King, K. (1998). Should school uniforms be mandated in elementary schools? Journal of School Health 68(1),
32-37.

Lipson, D. (1996, March). Off the cuff. Philadelphia Magazine, 3.

Majestic, A. (1991, January). Student dress codes in the 1990s. Inquiry and Analysis: NSBA Council of School
Attorneys, 3-9.

More Schools Requiring Uniforms. (1996, July 3). The Natchez Democrat, p. 1A.

Natale, J. (1993). Great expectations. Executive Educator, 15(10), 28.

Official: New Caddo policy barely curbs truancy. (1997, March 16). The Times, p. 1.

Pickles, P. (2000). Mandating school uniforms at all grades. The School Administrator, 57(11), 51-52.

Polacheck, K. (1995). Uniforms help solve many school problems. Available: http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/uni-
formf.htm

Scherer, M. (1991). School snapshot: Focus on African-American culture. Educational Leadership, 49(4), 17.

School Uniforms: Adopt voluntary code for all schools. (1997, February 26). The Times, p. 8A.

Siegel, L. (1996). ACLU point of view: School uniforms. Available: http://aclu.org/congress/uniform.html

Starr, J. (2000). School violence and its effect on the constitutionality of public school uniforms. Journal of
Law and Education, 29 (1), 113-118. Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District,
393 U.S. 503 (1969).

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Manual on school uniforms. Available:

http://www.ed.gov/updates/uniforms.html

West, C. , Bomba, A. , & Elmore, P. (1999). Attitudes of parents about school uniforms. Journal of Family
and Consumer Science, 91(2), 92-96.

White, K. (2000). Do school uniforms fit? The School Administrator, 57(2), 36-40.

Wingert, P. (October 4, 1999). Uniforms rule. Newsweek, 72.

Woods, H., & Ogletree, E. (1992). Parents’ opinions of the uniform student dress code. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Number ED 367 729)

Zirkel, P. (1998). A Uniform policy. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 550-551.

© 2002 National Middle School Association 9

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

Figures and Tables

TABLE 1. ANOVA Results, Importance of Uniforms — Students by Type of School

© 2002 National Middle School Association 10

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

TABLE 2. Student Means by Type of School and Significant Scheffe’ Analysis

Hypothesis 1

TABLE 3. t-test Results, Importance of Uniforms — Teachers v. Students

Hypothesis 2

© 2002 National Middle School Association 11

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

TABLE 4. ANOVA Results, Implementation of Uniforms — Students by Type of School

Hypothesis 3

© 2002 National Middle School Association 12

RMLE Online—Volume 25, No. 1

TABLE 5. Student Means by Type of School and Significant Scheffe’ Analysis

Hypothesis 3

© 2002 National Middle School Association 13