The results were dramatic within the first year. In the first year after implementation, overall school crime decreased by 36%, sex offenses fell by 74%, fights between students dropped by 51%, assault and battery offenses fell 34%, school suspensions dropped by 32%, and vandalism decreased by 18%. Perhaps most important, less than 1% of the students elected to opt out of the policy (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Nonetheless, opponents have criticized the internal validity of these findings. A study by Brunsma and Rocquemore (1998) used the NELS to test the effects on student achievement, attendance, behavior, and substance abuse in relation to wearing school uniforms. Advocates in favor for school uniforms state it affects students’ safety by lowering discrimination and harassment, gang activity, and distinguishing strangers from the students. They also believe that uniforms can bring positive attitudes through school pride, enhanced learning environment, and compliance of structural goals. Advocates also believe that school uniform wearing leads to decrease behavior problems and will increase self-esteem. With being one with the other students, there is a feeling of solidarity. On the other side of this platform, opponents state that it is a violation of a child’s individual rights’ and can be a major cost issue for some families. Adversaries claim that there is no empirical evidence that show positive conclusions of school uniform wearing. There’re finding found no positive correlation in wearing school uniforms on any of the listed outcomes. Placing a policy like this in effect is just scratching the surface of many underling problems and that this is just a superficial fix. Brunsma (2004) replicated the 1998 study using standardized testing. As the prior study, the results were representative of a decreased
The results were dramatic within the first year. In the first year after implementation, overall school crime decreased by 36%, sex offenses fell by 74%, fights between students dropped by 51%, assault and battery offenses fell 34%, school suspensions dropped by 32%, and vandalism decreased by 18%. Perhaps most important, less than 1% of the students elected to opt out of the policy (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Nonetheless, opponents have criticized the internal validity of these findings. A study by Brunsma and Rocquemore (1998) used the NELS to test the effects on student achievement, attendance, behavior, and substance abuse in relation to wearing school uniforms. Advocates in favor for school uniforms state it affects students’ safety by lowering discrimination and harassment, gang activity, and distinguishing strangers from the students. They also believe that uniforms can bring positive attitudes through school pride, enhanced learning environment, and compliance of structural goals. Advocates also believe that school uniform wearing leads to decrease behavior problems and will increase self-esteem. With being one with the other students, there is a feeling of solidarity. On the other side of this platform, opponents state that it is a violation of a child’s individual rights’ and can be a major cost issue for some families. Adversaries claim that there is no empirical evidence that show positive conclusions of school uniform wearing. There’re finding found no positive correlation in wearing school uniforms on any of the listed outcomes. Placing a policy like this in effect is just scratching the surface of many underling problems and that this is just a superficial fix. Brunsma (2004) replicated the 1998 study using standardized testing. As the prior study, the results were representative of a decreased