The controversy over schools’ uniformity and dress codes is intensely discussed, as reasonable arguments for both the proponents and opponents exist on the matter. The research presented in “School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies” by Wendell Anderson, in 2002 Report for the ERIC Clearinghouse, rationalizes the need to have school uniforms in as much as they reduce disruptive behavior, minimize socioeconomic differentiation, and maintain the academic standards on high levels. On the other hand, Samantha Deane’s 2015 paper “Dressing Diversity: The Banner “Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms” provides us with an example of clothes discrimination, which significantly helps children to lose their inborn desire to know mankind and its diversity. This essay will examination the points raised by Anderson and Deane, using this as a foundation to develop a compromise approach that ensures uniformity is maintained while giving the flexibility for personal freedom.
Anderson’s grounds for introducing compulsory uniforms depend on the outcomes such as suppressing distracting factors, generating a sense of belonging among students and giving equal places for students of different social backgrounds. In his opinion, uniforms do not differentiate and eliminate biases, unfair competition, and also lead to a more focused learning environment. Anderson (2002) in his statement asserts that “Uniforms reduce distractions in the classroom, allowing students to focus more on their studies rather than on their appearance” (p. 4)). He further supports his argument by citing a study which found a decrease in disciplinary issues after the implementation of uniforms in schools: “Disciplinary referrals decreased by 10% after the introduction of uniforms, indicating a positive impact on student behavior” (Anderson, 2002, p. 6).
However, Deane proposes an upgrade that not a dress code that is rigid and limiting but should instead is freely chosen according to the preferences of a particular individual. She emphasizes the need to treat culture with respect and laments that rigid regulations serve the opposite goal and curtail rather than promoting students’ freedom and uniqueness. Deane proposes that a dress policy that can be worn is influenced by the culture and individual inclination itself can create a sense of empathy and tolerance. Deane (2002) posits that “Students should be allowed to express their cultural identity through their clothing choices, as this promotes a sense of pride and belonging” (p. 10). She further asserts that allowing students to express themselves through clothing promotes a positive school environment and encourages self-confidence: “When students feel comfortable and confident in their clothing choices, they are more likely to engage in classroom activities and participate in school events” (Deane, 2002, p. 12).
Both Anderson and Deane have as a consensus that a friendly learning environment is instrumental however, whereas Anderson has a different opinion on how to reach this objective, Deane takes another path. J. Anderson lives by uniformity and discipline contrary to R. Deane who believes in variety and self-expression. To carry out his goals, Anderson favors a fair administrative system absolute obedience and an incorruptible justice system, while Deane actively works to fight corruption and promote democracy. While they both understand that things like bullying, socioeconomic disparities and academic achievement are also important in schools, these issues are beyond the scope of the jokes. Anderson is trying to get rid of all the distractions by having uniformity to develop rather a sense of equality. On the other hand, Deane’s approach is based on diversity that is to celebrate students as being individuals with their cultural backgrounds. Alternatively, an adjustment could entail keeping the regular rule but with a certain flexibility of being lenient on the uniform policy or even allocating a diversity day on a quarterly basis for both primary and high school. Furthermore, the proposed policy would also allow for the benefits perceived, and in terms of orderliness and community, to remain intact, at the same time still creating a designated area whereby learners can outwardly put on import revelations of their identities. Schools could partner with such events and teach students about other cultures and traditions as they are represented by students from different places. Apart from that, it recognizes that uniform advocates believe a mixture of chaos and diversions may become melancholic, and at the same time it preserves Deane’s opinion that the school must create a fertile ground for awareness about variety and understanding of otherness.
Consequently, a dress code policy that is not too rigid and reflects the particularities of a local community and provides some options for expression, in addition to mandatory uniform pieces, may create an ideal balance. Another option could be that students need normal, standard lower parts like khakis and polo shirts with the school logo, but at the same time they have the ability to wear different, also uniform-compliant elements such as tops, jackets and other parts that have some kind of personality to them. It contributes to not uniformity desperately depersonalized, but is stored to show by a community that it represents, rather than having critics rude authorities. A reasonable line that can be drawn, for instance, through offensive or daring images, can still be established.
REFLECTIONS
The Rogerian model is helpful in the aspect that either side of the discussion is not suppressed, but instead eq,ual attention is given to both sides by taking the middle ground perspective. It is not enough just to argue for a particular position by putting everything in favor of you and against the opposite side; this approach does not account for the truthfulness and reason of the opposite side opinions and bring these two sides together. Listen to others, master intercultural dialogue, develop positive traits to build the basis for a common language.
Having learnt and employed the Rogerian method, I have realized the necessity in considering the positive aspects for each side of the argument and finding the core point of the common disagreement in an argument that could bring about some compromises. It made it impossible to just accuse stubbornly and insisted on my personal viewpoint, and even made me think more complexly about the ways of making different views to be combined together.
REFERENCES
Anderson, W. (2002). School dress codes and uniform policies (Policy Report No. 4). ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Deane, S. (2015). Dressing diversity: Politics of difference and the case of school uniforms. Philosophical Studies in Education, 46, 112-120.
write