School uniforms create classroom equality

The argument

Proponents of mandatory school uniforms argue that a uniform removes from the classroom a signal that would otherwise be read constantly, and to some students' cost. When everyone is dressed the same way, clothing stops being information about a family's income or a child's taste, and the teasing directed at students who dress differently — whether by choice or for economic reasons — loses its material. The point is not that a uniform makes children kinder; it is that it takes away one of the readiest pretexts for cruelty, and one that tracks socio-economic disadvantage particularly closely. Teachers appear to recognise this: in one survey among teachers, 83% thought the adoption of a school uniform could prevent bullying. The second half of the argument concerns adults rather than children, and proponents treat it as the less obvious but more consequential effect. Evidence suggests that teachers hold higher expectations of students who are wearing nicer clothes. Because expectations shape behaviour, this does not remain a private judgement: teachers pay extra attention to the better-dressed students and spend more time with them, while those who appear more unkempt are neglected. A child whose family cannot dress them well is therefore penalised twice, once by classmates and again by the person responsible for teaching them, and the second penalty is the harder one to see or to complain about, because it operates as a series of small allocations of attention rather than as an identifiable act. A uniform addresses both effects at once, since it removes the signal on which each depends. That is the sense in which uniforms create equality in the classroom: not equality of ability or effort, but a level playing field of expectations, among students and teachers alike. Where that equality can be secured by a rule about clothing, proponents argue, the rule should be mandatory.

Context

Schools bring students together from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. This is both a positive, as it exposes children to diversity and builds ethnic, religious, and socio-economic bridges, but it can also lead to students being singled out and bullied for their economic standing.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This is untrue. Anyone who has been to school or taught in a school will know that a uniform is unable to conceal socio-economic differences. More affluent families have new uniforms instead of second-hand ones. They replace uniforms when they become dishevelled instead of wearing them until they tear. Poorer students' uniforms are more likely to be poorly-fitted. Nor can uniforms effectively curb bullying. Bullying in schools, as in wider society, is the result of deep power imbalances that go far beyond what clothes a student is wearing. While uniforms may reduce bullying along lines of clothing, they will do nothing to tackle the root causes of the problem and will merely push the bullying to other avenues of attack and victimisation. Most teachers will tell you that bullies will still bully victims even when there is a uniform policy. The nature of the bullying will merely shift to the way the victim styles their hair or does their makeup, or what bag they carry and shoes they wear.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] School uniforms do not create a level playing field.