Bruce Morris and Donna Wells, Editors

Dress Codes and Uniforms

The primary purpose of schools is to teach; however, students cannot learn unless they feel safe. As educators, law enforcement officials and policy-makers struggle with school safety issues, more stringent dress codes and school uniform policies are increasingly being considered as viable means to provide for the safety and security of students.

Many public safety efforts today are guided by the “broken windows” theory first advanced by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. According to the theory, communities can prevent or reduce serious crimes by alleviating an environment that encourages any criminal activity. That is, by eliminating nuisance problems like littering, graffiti, and broken windows in abandoned buildings, officials will also reduce the likelihood criminals will feel welcome or that greater crimes will occur.

The theory can also be applied to school safety. By removing an environment that fosters violence, educators can enhance safety, thereby promoting opportunities for academic excellence. School site assessments, crisis management plans, full-time school resource officers (SROs) and dress codes are but a few of the measures being used by school districts to maintain order and enhance the safety of students.

The question facing policy-makers is whether more stringent dress codes, and perhaps, school uniforms would provide a significantly safer environment more conducive to the pursuit of knowledge.

Historically, education officials have acted in loco parentis concerning the discipline and supervision of students. This tradition is reflected in the use of school dress codes and uniforms. Uniforms have been a part of education for over a century, although their use declined significantly during the middle of the 20th century, when the courts were inundated by cases concerning individual freedoms and rights, and student disciplinary actions.

In recent years, in the wake of increased school-based violence and gang activity, many communities have implemented tighter restrictions on student dress and a growing number have implemented school uniform policies. A 1992 survey of parental attitudes regarding dress codes assessed the perceived impact of uniforms on self-esteem, peer pressure, safety, and finances (Woods and Ogletree). Most parents believed that uniforms provided a measure of protection against gang activity, eliminated some competition and peer pressure among students, and were more economical than other school clothes. The survey also concluded that active parental involvement was a necessity to ensure the success of such a policy.

Those school officials, parents and researchers who favor the use of school uniforms argue that they enhance the ability of the school to achieve its basic academic purpose, diminish the differences among socio-economic levels, promote self-confidence and school spirit, and improve student behavior.

• In 1996, at the direction of President Clinton, the U.S. Department of Education published and disseminated a Manual of School Uniforms to all 16,000 school districts in the United States encouraging the establishment of a school uniform policy. The document identified the following benefits to school uniforms:
  1. Decreasing violence and theft,
  2. Preventing gang members from wearing gang clothing at school,
  3. Instilling student discipline,
  4. Helping to resist peer pressure,
  5. Helping students concentrate on academics, and
  6. Aiding in the recognition of intruders.
• In all, 37 state legislatures, including those in California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, and Utah, as well as Virginia’s General Assembly, have enacted legislation enabling local communities to set their own uniform policies.
• Presently, 80 percent of the public schools in Chicago require uniforms, as do 60 percent of the schools in Miami. Additionally, 30 percent of San Francisco’s public schools have uniform programs, as do 95 percent of the schools in New Orleans, 50 percent in Cincinnati, 85 percent in Cleveland, and 65 percent in Boston.
• Both Long Beach, California, and Birmingham, Alabama have mandatory uniform policies.
• On May 8, 2000, the Philadelphia Board of Education became the first large city board to require all students in public schools to wear uniforms. A voluntary uniform program existed for several years. Under the new mandate, each of the city’s 258 schools will choose its own required uniform. Punishment of students for failure to wear a uniform will not commence until the 2001-02 academic year.
• Those parents and students who oppose uniforms contend that they infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students, are used as an unnecessary means of controlling students; do not deter violence; have not been proven to enhance academic excellence; and provide an economic hardship to certain families.
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), through its Public Education Department, argues that there are no empirical studies supporting the benefits of school uniforms and that, at this point, they are simply experimental. In 1996, the ACLU conducted focus groups with high school students to determine what the students believed would reduce school violence. The conclusions included:
  1. Schools should address racism and cultural conflict.
  2. Safe corridor programs should be implemented to protect students going to and from school.
  3. School entrances should be secured.
  4. Additional activities and clubs should be established.
  5. Assemblies should be held regularly to allow students to express their concerns.
  6. Job placement opportunities should be provided for students.
  7. Conflict resolution techniques should be taught to students.

In 1969, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that school administrators are state actors whose discipline of students is constrained by the federal Constitution. The Court held that students have the right to freedom of expression in school, only unless or until the exercise of that right materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline or collides with the rights of others in the school.

• In 1972, in further support of limitations on students’ freedom of expression, in Karr v. Schmidt, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a right “to wear one’s hair in a public high school in the length and style that suits the wearer,” is not provided “within the plain meaning of the Constitution.”
• In Kelley v. Johnson (1976), a case involving Suffolk County (New York) police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an individual’s liberty interest in his own appearance cannot be infringed upon unless there is a rational basis related to a legitimate government interest. The burden rests with the government to show a “public need” for the regulation. The Johnson decision provided a framework for assessing student discipline cases. Although a person has a basic liberty interest in his personal appearance that cannot be infringed upon without rational basis, the government was afforded “wide latitude” in their decisions.
• The purpose of schools is to teach. In Humphries v. Lincoln Parish School Board (1985), the Louisiana Appellate Court reaffirmed the right of a football coach to require that his students be clean-shaven. The coach argued successfully that his rules were integral to a “total discipline program” that supported academic and athletic excellence. The court, noting the success of his program, held that the rules were reasonable as they related to an educational goal.
• Over time, the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have reaffirmed the authority of school officials to establish and enforce reasonable personal appearance requirements. They typically uphold the rights of school boards to make the determination. The First, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, on the other hand, generally have ruled in favor of students, finding that personal grooming regulations cannot be upheld, often because they are unnecessary.
• Concerning dress codes, specifically in Pyle v. South Hadley School Community (1993), a Massachusetts District Court upheld school officials’ right to ban offensive t-shirts, agreeing that such clothing was inconsistent with the district’s “basic educational mission.”
• In another clothing-related decision, Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District (1993), a California District Court upheld a school district’s right to ban students from wearing any clothing with a collegiate or professional sports insignia, if the district could substantiate the connection between such clothing and gang activity in the school.

In summary, the courts have established some parameters by which school officials may regulate personal appearance. Personal appearance is protected unless it is vulgar, indecent, obscene or insulting; unless it carries a message that encourages inappropriate behavior (e.g., violence, drug use, smoking); or if there is a reasonable basis, such as maintaining discipline, for restricting such appearance.

Those considering policy revisions should consider the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of uniform policies. In 1997, Nadine Strossen, then-President of the ACLU, told the New York Times that uniform policies are only vulnerable to challenge if they fail to  provide uniforms for those who can’t afford them or if they fail to include an opt-out provision for religious or cultural beliefs that would be in conflict with the wearing of a uniform.

Appearance-related problems usually fall into four general categories (Gullatt):

• Value placed on appearance and clothing, especially during adolescence,
• Distorted values and attitudes,
• Antisocial and/or criminal behavior, and
• Disruptive or inappropriate appearance.

School uniforms tend to polarize two basic student needs: the right to freedom of expression and the need for a safe, productive learning environment. Policy-makers must provide the appropriate balance between the two.

Presently, no state legislature or state department of education mandates student uniforms or specific dress codes. In forty-two states, local districts are authorized to implement uniform requirements. In at least 37 states, one or more local school districts have adopted a school uniform policy.

Officials in Long Beach, California, believe that their pilot school uniform program, implemented in 11 schools serving 8,000 students, resulted in fewer truancies, fewer tardies, fewer discipline problems, better grades, and higher achievement. Since the mandatory uniform policy was established, school-related crime has declined 76 percent and attendance has reached its highest levels in the district’s history. Because the policy was introduced at the same time as a number of other discipline measures, the correlation between uniforms and positive results is difficult to assess accurately.

Because no long-term empirical studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of school uniforms or specific dress codes, the results remain anecdotal and unproven. Additionally, antisocial and criminal activity generally has been declining, both within schools and within communities across Virginia and the country. The specific causes for the eight-year decline in crime rates have not been established; accordingly, some argue that no conclusion can be drawn concerning the impact of uniforms or more stringent dress codes on crime rates in schools. Others might contend that they do not exacerbate the problem.

Presently, educators and the public are divided on the issue. As crime rates continue to decline and the safety of schools increases, there may be less interest in restrictive policies toward students. To defend any policy or action in court, a policy-maker must define the best interests involved and demonstrate how the interest is served by the restriction.

In Virginia, the growing use of full-time law enforcement officers in schools (SROs) may be viewed as a better alternative than uniforms to enhance the safety and security of school sites.

The 1995 General Assembly enacted §22.1-79.2 of the Code of Virginia which enables local boards to establish uniform requirements. In June 1996, under the leadership of then-Superintendent of Public Instruction William C. Bosher, Jr., the Virginia Department of Education developed and disseminated model guidelines to provide guidance to local boards.

Those policy-makers considering implementing more stringent dress code policies must be able to demonstrate that a certain kind of dress can be linked to disruptive behavior or behavior that directly infringes on the rights of others and that such policies do not discriminate against any minority population.

When considering school uniforms, policy-makers should consider three questions (Isaacson, 1998):

1. Are the requirements legally defensible?
2. Do they actually restore or keep order?
3. Are less restrictive requirements a better alternative?

From the least to the most restrictive, policies that can be considered include:

1. Not instituting a dress code.
2. Institute a dress code that outlines general goals and allows school officials to establish specific policies.
3. Institute a district-wide, specific dress code.
4. Authorize a voluntary uniform policy.
5. Authorize a mandatory uniform policy.

The most successful policies have proven to be those in which students, parents and community members were actively involved in the development process (and thus, developed positive views concerning the need for and results of such initiatives), students’ rights to religious expression were accommodated, opt-out provisions were established, and financial assistance was provided as necessary.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Dress Codes and Uniforms.”

1. Cohn, Carl. “Mandatory School Uniforms,” The School Administrator, February 1996.
2. Dulatt, David E. “The Place for Uniforms in the School Dress Code: A National and State Perspective,” NASSP Journal of Secondary and Higher Education, Vol. 2, May 1999.
3. Isaacson, Lynne. “Student Dress Policies,” ERIC Digest, Number 17, 1998.
4. Majestic, Ann L. “Student Dress Codes in the 1990s,” National School Boards Association’s Council of School Attorneys, 1995.
5. McCarthy, Colman. “Uniforms Aren’t the Answer,” Washington Post, March 16, 1996.
6. Superintendent’s Memo No. 112, Virginia Department of Education, June 14, 1996.
7. Woods, H. & Ogletree, I. “Parents’ Opinions of the Uniform Student Dress Code,” ERIC Document Reproduction Number ED 367 729, 1992.
8. familyeducation.com
9. naesp.org
10. nassp.org
11. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/pubdb.html
12. tokeepsafe.com

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.