Introduction
The need for uniforms in schools has always been a subject of debate, with some arguing they are helpful and others arguing they are not. The given analysis will focus on creating a solid Rogerian argument for the topic by assessing two sources. The first article is Wendell Anderson’s (2002) “School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies,” published in Policy Report. It argues that school uniforms are net positive.
The second source is Samantha Deane’s (2015) “Dressing Diversity,” published in Philosophical Studies in Education. It opposes school uniforms, arguing that such “policies operate at the expense of a politics of difference” (Deane, 2015, p. 119). The central Rogerian claim is that school uniforms should be implemented, with consideration for inclusivity and diversity of expression.
Arguments in Favor of Uniform
The pro-uniform rationales include reducing violence, avoiding exclusion, maintaining order, improving performance, and promoting family values. It is stated that “dress code or uniform policy must be justifiable, reasonable, and manageable” (Anderson, 2002, p. 18). However, it is also acknowledged that “with more empirical research will come more enlightened dress-code policies; with more successes will come more cooperation” (Anderson, 2002, p. 18). In other words, uniforms have benefits, such as reducing violence, but more data is still needed.
The most common and most significant argument in Anderson’s (2002) report is linked to violence, such as gang affiliation, discrimination, and improved compliance. Dress codes eliminate opportunities for some students to wear gang-affiliated clothing, such as baggy pants, thereby reducing the promotion of these values at school. In addition, there is less fighting among students because of differences in style. Children from low-income families do not feel excluded from students with more expensive clothing. Lastly, parents do not need to spend as much on their children’s clothes.
Arguments Against Uniform
The anti-uniform stance emphasizes that children should be able to freely express themselves, explore their identities, and not be confined by narrow definitions of achievement. Opponents to school uniform policies believe that they “operate at the expense of a politics of difference” (Deane, 2015, p. 119). Deane (2015) states that students should be able to converse and analyze their differences while together in a familiar environment. Such a condition promotes more democratic skills and attitudes since politics is about engaging in a dialogue and finding mutual points of interest. It should be stated that uniforms essentially make them ignorant since they eliminate their gender, race, and emotion for reason, which has no practical application in the real world.
The key similarity between the two sources is that they understand how restrictive uniforms are compared to dress codes or no-uniform policies. For example, Anderson (2002) states that uniforms require serious justification, as does Deane (2015), but she goes further, arguing that there are not enough reasons to do so.
Another significant similarity is that both sides of the debate lack sufficient evidence to support their arguments clearly. Deane’s (2015) arguments are deeply tied to different theoretical frameworks, such as Fraser’s bivalent continuum, whereas Anderson’s (2002) openly admits that more empirical data is needed. However, Anderson (2002) states that parents will spend and worry less about what their children will wear to school, whereas Deane (2015) claims that students will not be able to explore their differences properly. Hence, there is a difference in what each side focuses on – pro-uniform advocates are mainly concerned with immediate problems, such as violence at schools or exclusion. In the case of anti-uniform groups, they emphasize the practical consequences of such actions for children’s future, including their identity, political skills, diversity, and role in society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a school uniform should be implemented with enough room for variations and diversity. It satisfies both sides of the debate because it will have ‘wiggle room’ to be creative, such as the color of a shirt, tie, and other minor elements. However, it will still be stricter than a dress code. Students will express and explore themselves through these variations allowed at school, which will help them to discuss their differences (Deane, 2015).
The uniform will also offer immediate benefits, such as reducing violence and promoting family values (Anderson, 2002). As a result, the core definition parts of the clothing will still be uniform for all students: the logo, pants, or skirt color; yet, the shoe, tie, or skirt colors will be up to students’ choosing.
References
Anderson, W. (2002). School dress codes and uniform policies. Policy Report, 1(4), 1-20.
Deane, S. (2015). Dressing diversity: Politics of difference and the case of school uniforms. Philosophical Studies in Education, 46, 111-120.