Public school systems across the country are now requiring students to wear uniforms. Can uniforms really make a difference in a child’s academic performance? Wouldn't uniforms infringe the child’s creativity and self expression? The "clothes don't make the child" right (Hempill A15)? Wrong. School uniforms can drastically reduce school violence and help a student to focus on school work. In 1996, President Clinton endorsed public school uniforms in his State of the Union Address(Atkins 42). This created a rage among some education critics across the country. Critics complain that uniforms will lessen children’s individualism and creativity, infringing students’ rights and hint of racism. While proponents believe, uniforms will put the students emphasis on schoolwork instead of dressing coolly, and they will help to lower school violence. The idea comes from a Californian elementary school in Long Beach. "In 1994, Long Beach became the country's first public school district to institute a mandatory uniform policy”(Atkins 42). The results were so promising that they lead to the President’s endorsement. The school saw a fifty-one percent drop in physical fights, a thirty-four percent drop in assaults and batteries, a fifty percent drop in weapons offenses, and a thirty-two percent drop in school suspensions(Mancini 65). All this in a time span of only one year. Proving that a child’s clothes does make a difference in school violence. In a time when school children are getting killed for designer jackets and shoes, uniforms are exactly what our children need(Mancini 63). Critics say that school uniform inhibit self expression. If you take away a child's self expression through clothing, you force that child to express his or herself in other ways. This might even force a child to resort to even more violent forms of expression, like through writing and art. In today’s society, students are ...
