Journal of Contemporary Research in Education Journal of Contemporary Research in Education
Volume 3
Number 3
April 2015
Article 5
4-1-2015
Uniform Policies, School Violence, and School Outcomes: From Uniform Policies, School Violence, and School Outcomes: From
Principal’s Perspective Principal’s Perspective
Seunghee Han
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jcre
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Han, Seunghee (2015) "Uniform Policies, School Violence, and School Outcomes: From Principal’s
Perspective,"
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education
: Vol. 3 : No. 3 , Article 5.
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jcre/vol3/iss3/5
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Education, School of at eGrove. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Research in Education by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Uniform Policies, School Violence, and
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education
School Outcomes: From Principal’s Perspective
3(3) 109-121
Seunghee Han
Independent Researcher
During the last 10 years, there has
been an increasing rate of public schools
mandating a uniform policy. According to a
recent report from the U.S. Department of
Education (Robers, Zhang & Truman, 2012),
about 19% of public schools required students
to wear a uniform in the 2009-2010 school
year, compared to the 1999-2000 school year
when only 12% of public schools had uniform
policies. Although more schools have adopted
school uniform policies, the benefits have
rarely been confirmed by empirical evidence.
Proponents of uniform policies claim that
uniform policies reduce problem behaviors,
improve achievements, minimize the
socioeconomic gap, and create a more orderly
learning climate; however, others disagree
(Anderson 2002; Evans 1996; Johnston 2009;
Wilken 2012; Zernike 2002).
Many researchers have examined the
effects of uniform policies on student
outcomes such as attendance (Brunsma &
Rockquemore 1998; Hughes 2006; Stockton &
Gullatt 2002), achievement (Brunsma &
Rockquemore 1998; Draa 2005; Yeung 2009),
school climate (Brunsma & Rockquemore
1998; Huss 2007; Murray 1997), and student
behaviors (Brunsma & Rockquemore 1998;
Han 2010; Johnson 2010; Polacheck 1996;
Sanchez, Yoxsimer, & Hill 2012). By
analyzing nationally representative samples,
the current study attempts to add another piece
of empirical evidence to determine how
uniform policies influence the school
outcomes. A few studies have simultaneously
examined multiple types of student outcomes
including violence, academic achievement,
and educational motivation, which may be the
most predictable benefits from uniform
policies. The main purpose of the study is to
seek associations between uniform policies
and school outcomes in the hopes that the
findings result in a better understanding of
uniform policies’ effects. The present study
controls for ten potential factors (e.g., parental
involvement, proportion of minority students,
school violence and crime in school areas) that
may influence associations between school
uniform policies and school outcomes. By
doing so, the results could minimize an
overestimation of the effects of uniform
policies on the school outcomes.
Abstract
This study explores the relationships between uniform policies and school outcomes by
analyzing data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety 2007-2008. Data from 387 urban
elementary schools indicate that schools with uniform policies tend to have more violent incidents
than schools without uniform policies. Perceptions of principals indicate more frequent incidents (e.g.,
verbal abuse of teacher, disrespect to teacher, and classroom disorder) in schools with uniform policies
than schools with no uniform policies. In addition, school violence measured by disciplinary outcomes
shows that schools with uniform policies have more drug problems, physical attacks or fights,
insubordination, gang-related incidents, and disruptions than schools without uniform policies. After
controlling for school characteristics and school violence, multivariate regression analyses show that
schools with uniform policies are positively associated with achievement and learning value, but
negatively with students’ aspiration.
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
110
Literature Review
Uniform Policies and Violence
Reducing students’ problem behaviors
is one of the strong claims of proponents of
uniform policies. Prior studies have
demonstrated negative effects of uniform
policies on violence, yet the findings are rather
inconsistent (Brunsma & Rockquemore 1998;
Draa 2005; Han 2010; Hughes 2006;
Polacheck 1996; Wade & Stafford 2003;
Yeung 2009).
Researchers have found negative
associations between uniform policies and
violence at different school levels (middle or
high school); urban area; and perceptions of
various stakeholders, such as principals,
parents, students, and teachers. A study of the
Long Beach Unified School District in
California examined the first implementation
of uniform policies in U.S. public schools. The
case clearly showed that a uniform policy was
effective in reducing violent incidents
(Polacheck 1996). In this study, uniform
polices were implemented for approximately
60,000 students in 70 schools during the years
1993-1994 and 1994-1995. Overall, violent
incidents were reduced about 35%, from 3,242
to 2,074, during the period.
Similarly, Draa (2005) found a
significant reduction in the suspension rate
over time in 64 urban high schools in Ohio.
Furthermore, Wade and Stafford (2003)
conducted a survey of 415 students and 83
teachers and reported a significant decrease in
gang presence in six urban middle schools. In
addition, Texas middle schools reported a
decrease in students’ problem behaviors and
discipline outcomes (Hughes 2006) and a
middle school in Nevada also reported a
decrease in discipline outcomes and students’
perceived violent incidents, such as gang and
bullying problems (Sanchez et al., 2012). Han
(2010), even after controlled for crime
prevention efforts, the achievement level on
standardized tests and school size,
demonstrated negative relationships between
uniform policies and a number of student
problem behaviors (e.g., weapons, drugs,
alcohol, fights) at the elementary and middle
school levels.
Contrary to those studies, a national
study showed no such effect of uniform
policies. Brunsma and Rockquemore (1998),
who analyzed a nationally representative
sample from the National Educational
Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88),
found no direct associations between uniform
policies and student problem behaviors (e.g.,
suspension, fights, being in trouble, and
substance use), holding school characteristics
and school preparedness and attitudes
constant. On the other hand, Wade and
Stafford (2003) showed mixed results of the
effect of uniform policies by different
stakeholders. Based on data from six public
urban middle schools, the researchers found
that students’ perceptions of gang presence did
not change with uniform policies, but the
teachers in schools requiring uniform policies
perceived less gang presence than their
counterparts (Wade & Stafford 2003).
Similarly, Johnson (2010), based on data from
38 high schools in North Carolina from the
2004-2005 through 2008-2009 school years,
found no significant change in violent
incidents and suspensions after schools
adopted uniform policies. However, the school
administrators from those schools perceived
an increase in school safety. Huss (2007) also
found that elementary school teachers
perceived a positive effect of uniform polices
on school order and discipline, yet only
suspensions decreased and the actual number
of discipline referrals remained unchanged.
Uniform Policies and School Outcomes
Although proponents of uniform
policies believe that uniforms improve student
academic performance (e.g., achievement,
graduation rate, and attendance rate), only a
few studies provide firm empirical evidence
for this claim.
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
111
Schools having mandatory uniform
policies improved attendance and graduation
rates in urban high schools in Ohio (Draa
2005) and raised the attendance rate in
secondary schools in a large urban school
district (Gentile & Imberman 2012). Yet other
national studies failed to show such positive
effects. In Brunsma and Rockquemore’s
(1998) study, the result of regression analyses
using more than 4,500 samples from NELS:88
showed negative associations between
uniform policies and standardized
achievement scores. For tenth graders in
schools adopting uniform policies, a 3-point
decrease in standardized test scores was
observed. In addition, Brunsma and
Rockquemore reported no direct effect of
uniform policies on attendance rates (Brunsma
& Rockquemore 1998). Another national
study also failed to demonstrate that a uniform
policy increases academic achievement. Using
two nationally representative data sets, the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Kindergarten Class (ECLS-K) and the
NELS:88, Yeung (2009) measured students’
achievement using multiple subjects and
examined the association between school
uniforms and achievement among second and
tenth graders. In his study, no significant
association between uniform policy and
achievement was found, after controlling for
previous achievement level (Yeung 2009).
While no significant effect of uniform
policies on attendance rates was reported in
two middle schools in Texas during the 1995-
1996 school year (Hughes 2006), positive
effects of uniform policies on student
achievement and attendance rate were
observed in Louisiana (Stockton & Gullatt
2002). There was a positive effect on student
achievement at the middle and secondary
schools, but only the secondary schools
reported improvement in attendance rates
(Stockton & Gullatt 2002).
Another strong claim from uniform
proponents is that uniforms create a sound
learning climate, yet there is very weak
evidence as well as inconsistent research
findings.
Murray (1997) conducted a survey of
306 students in two middle schools to
determine the effects of uniform policies on
school climate. School climate was measured
with 10 subitems, such as the students’
academic orientations, students’ behavioral
values, and relationships with teachers and
peers. Comparing the means of the responses,
Murray found higher means for the school
climate items (9 out of 10 subitems) in
uniform schools than in non-uniform schools.
Although Murray indicated differences in
students’ perceptions of school climate
between uniform schools and non-uniform
schools, no statistical tests were performed in
the study. Huss (2007), conducting an
interview of six elementary school teachers in
Ohio, found a positive effect of uniform
policies on school climate. Interview results
indicated that uniform policies promote
respect, trust, and a caring environment by
decreasing clothing-related discrimination
toward students in poverty. In addition, the
teachers perceived that school order,
discipline, and students’ academic motivation,
such as doing homework and participating in
class, improved (Huss 2007).
Even though some previous studies
have demonstrated the benefits of having
uniform policies, others showed no such
findings. Wade and Stafford (2003) performed
a multivariate analysis of variance using data
from 415 students and 83 teachers in urban
middle schools and there was no significant
difference in students’ self-perceptions
between uniform schools and non-uniform
schools. Moreover, students with uniforms had
lower scores in the self-worth test than those
without uniforms. Additionally, students’ and
teachers’ responses to perceived school
climate (e.g., teacher-student relationships,
student-peer relationships, and security and
maintenance) were not statistically different
with uniform policies in place (Wade &
Stafford 2003).
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
112
Current Study
Using a nationally representative
sample, the current study investigated
relationships between uniform policies and
school outcomes. One possible reason for the
inconsistent results of the previous studies is
that the adequate control variables were not
considered. Failing to do so may have caused
an overestimation of the effects of uniform
policies. The current study controlled for
necessary confounding factors such as school
size, percentage of disadvantaged students
(e.g., ethnic minority, limited English
proficient [LEP] students, and special
education students), parental involvement, and
crime level in the school area and students’
residence. The results may increase accuracy
in determining whether or not a uniform
policy influences in the achievements,
aspirations, and learning values. The present
study used data from only public elementary
schools, because the school sector and the
school level may influence the effects of
uniform policies on student outcomes
(Brunsma & Rockquemore 1998). Finally,
many previous studies assessed perceptions of
student problem behaviors (Huss 2007;
Johnson 2010; Sanchez et al., 2012; Wade &
Stafford 2003) and showed contradictory
findings across stakeholders. To improve the
method of measurement of violence, the
present study used both the principals’
perceived violence, the number of students
who committed offenses based on official
school records, and number of violent
incidents measured by disciplinary actions.
Specific research questions of the
study are as follows. First, are the principals’
perceptions of school violence in uniform
schools significantly different from that of
non-uniform schools? Second, are actual
violent incidents in uniform schools
significantly different than those in non-
uniform schools? And third, how are uniform
policies associated with school outcomes, after
controlling for school characteristics and
school violence?
Method
Data
The School Survey on Crime and
Safety (SSOCS) is one of the most
comprehensive data sets that contains
information about school crime and safety,
including crime prevention programs, school
security practices, and student problem
behaviors with disciplinary actions. The
SSOCS program was established by the
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) to meet the need in ensuring safe,
high-quality education in the wake of multiple
school shootings in 1999. On behalf of the
U.S. Department of Education, the NCES
developed the 2007-2008 SSOCS and the U.S.
Census Bureau conducted the survey. During
February 25 and June 17 in 2008, a total 3,367
of questionnaire packets were sent to public
elementary, middle, high, and combined
schools. A total of 2,560 usable questionnaires
were collected and 77.2% was obtained as a
weighted response rate (Ruddy, Neiman,
Hryczaniuk, Thomas, & Parmer 2010). As a
nationally representative data set, SSOCS has
been collected every 2 years since the 1999-
2000 school year and the SSOCS 2007-2008
data, which was used in the current study, is
the latest that has been released to the public.
In the present study, 387 elementary schools
in urban areas were selected from the SSOCS
2007-2008 data set.
Variables
Uniform policies were measured
whether or not schools required uniforms and
used it as a dichotomous variable (yes = 1, no
= 0). In addition, uniform polices and uniform
schools both mean schools that require
students to wear uniforms in the study. School
violence for the multiple regression models
was measured by using the total number of
students who committed offenses based on
schools’ official records. Achievement,
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
113
aspiration, and learning value were measured
based on principals’ report. Achievement was
measured as the percentage of students who
scored above the 15th percentile on
standardized tests. Aspiration was measured
by the percentage of students who were likely
to go to college after graduating high school.
Learning value was assessed by the percentage
of students who perceived the importance of
academic achievement.
Principals’ perceived school violence
was measured by eight forms of school
violence including student racial/ethnic
tensions, bullying, sexual harassment, disorder
in classrooms, verbal abuse of teachers,
disrespect towards teachers, gang activities,
and cult or extremist group activities.
Principals responded to each item as 1 =
happens daily, 2 = happens at least once a
week, 3 = happens at least once a month, 4 =
happens on occasion, and 5 = never happens.
This variable was reverse-coded for the
analysis.
Actual violent incidents for the second
research question were assessed as number of
disciplinary actions for each firearms,
weapons, drugs, alcohol, physical attacks or
fights, insubordination, gang-related hate
crimes and classroom disruption.
Parental involvement in school events
was measured using four items (e.g., open
house and parent-teacher conferences) and
obtained the following responses: 1 = 0% to
25%, 2 = 26% to 50%, 3 = 51% to 75%, 4 =
76% to 100%, and 5 = school does not offer.
For the analyses, response 5 (school does not
offer) was excluded and the sum was
computed as a composite of parental
involvement in school events (Cronbach’s
alpha = .76). Parental involvement in
discipline was assessed using three items (i.e.,
formal process of parental input on crime and
discipline policies, training for dealing with
student problem behavior, and involvement in
discipline) and the alpha coefficient for the
three items was .52.
School size was assessed as a
categorical variable indicating 1 = less than
300, 2 = 300 to 499, 3 = 500 to 999, and 4 =
greater than 1,000. Minority students were
defined as Black/African American,
Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and
American Indian/Alaska Native, and they
were assessed as a percentage of the
categorical variable (1 = less than 5%, 2 = 5%
to less than 20%, 3 = 20% to less than 50%,
and 4 = 50% or more). Special education
students were measured as a percentage and
were categorized as students who have
disabilities or other needs for special
education and related services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The LEP students were measured as a
percentage based on principals’ reports. High-
crime in school location was assessed as 1 =
high level of crime, 2 = moderate level of
crime, and 3 = low level of crime. It was
created as a dummy variable indicating a high
level of crime. High-crime in student
residence was assessed as 1 = high level of
crime, 2 = moderate level of crime, 3 = low
level of crime, and 4 = students come from
areas with very different levels of crime. For
the analysis, excluding item 4 (students come
from areas with very different levels of crime),
a dummy variable indicating a high level of
crime was created.
Data Analyses
The independent samples t-test was
performed to answer the first research
question (Are the principals’ perceptions of
school violence in uniform schools
significantly different from that of non-
uniform schools?) and the second research
question (Are actual violent incidents in
uniform schools significantly different than
those in non-uniform schools?). The third
research question (How are uniform policies
associated with school outcomes (e.g.,
academic achievement, aspiration, and
learning value, after controlling for school
characteristics and school violence?) was
answered by using multivariate regression
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
114
analyses. In the multivariate regression
analyses, 10 control variables were included:
parental involvement in school events,
parental involvement in discipline, school size,
minority student, special education students,
LEP students, perceived school violence,
school violence, high-crime in school location,
and high-crime in students’ residence. School
violence in the multiple regression model
showed a positively skewed distribution, so
this variable was transformed using log 10 for
the multivariate regression analyses. To detect
multicollinearity, the average Variation
Inflation Factor (VIF) of regression models
was examined. The results showed that the
VIF of each variable ranged from 1.03 to 3.10,
and the average VIF was 1.70.
Multicollinearity is considered when values of
VIF are greater than 10 (Field 2009), thus it
was concluded that none of the variables in the
multiple regression models were highly
correlated with others. All analyses were
performed with SPSS 17.0, and the weighted
data (FINALWGT variable) that were
provided by the SSOCS data set were used.
Results
Principals’ Perceived School Violence
between Uniform and Non-Uniform Schools
Table 1 (See Appendix) displays the
results of independent samples t-test indicating
whether a principal’s perceived school
violence differs between uniform schools and
non-uniform schools. The findings show that
uniform schools have more frequent violent
incidents than non-uniform schools. Four out
of eight forms of school violence (e.g., verbal
abuse of teacher, disrespect to teacher,
classroom disorder and gang activities) occur
more frequently in uniform school than non-
uniform schools. Students’ verbal abuse of
teachers in uniform schools (M = 1.04, SD =
.99) is more frequent than in non-uniform
schools (M = .61, SD = .68). The results of this
test indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference in students’ verbal abuse
of teachers between the schools with/without a
uniform policy, t (385) = 4.91, p =.000. The
size of the effect as indexed by Cohen’s
coefficient d = .51, which is medium.
Students’ disrespectfulness towards teachers is
more frequent in uniform schools (M = 1.28,
SD = 1.14) than in non-uniform schools (M =
.86, SD = .82) with t (385) = 3.74, p =.000.
The effect size of Cohen’s d is .39, which is
small. Classroom disorder is more frequent in
uniform schools (M = .68, SD = 1.02) than in
non-uniform schools (M = .31, SD = .62) with
t (385) = 4.36, p =.000. The effect size of
Cohen’s d is .44. Gang activity is more
frequent in uniform schools (M = .28, SD =
.58) than in non-uniform schools (M = .13, SD
= .37) with t (385) = 2.46, p =.014. The effect
size of Cohen’s d is .23.
Actual Violent Incidents between Uniform
and Non-Uniform Schools
Table 2 (See Appendix) shows how
the mean number of violent incidents is
different between uniform schools and non-
uniform schools. All eight forms of incidents
occur more frequently in uniform schools than
in non-uniform schools. Specifically, uniform
schools have a statistically significantly more
drug-related incidents than non-uniform
schools (M = .09 vs. .01; t = -2.84, p = .005).
The effect size of Cohen’s d is -.30. Uniform
schools have more incidents involving
physical attacks or fights than non-uniform
schools (M = 14.03 vs. 8.98; t = -2.02, p =
.044). The effect size of Cohen’s d is -.21.
Students’ insubordination incidents occur
more frequently in uniform schools than in
non-uniform schools (M = 29.52 vs.13.43; t =
-2.12, p = .034). The effect size of Cohen’s d
is -.22. Gang-related incidents and hate crimes
occur more frequently in uniform schools than
in non-uniform schools (M = .69 vs. .09; t = -
2.90, p = .004). The effect size of Cohen’s d is
-.30. The disruption incidents occur more
often in uniform schools than in non-uniform
schools (M = .70 vs. .42; t = -2.63, p = .009).
The effect size of Cohen’s d is -.27.
Effect of Uniform Policies on School
Outcomes
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
115
Table 3 (See Appendix) presents
relationships between uniform policies and
school outcomes including academic
achievement, aspiration and learning value.
After controlling for school characteristics and
school violence, uniform policies may
improve the mean achievement score
measured by standardized tests (p <.001) and
positively influence students’ learning value (p
<.001), but they may negatively influence
students’ aspiration. The results of
multivariate regression model indicate that the
proportions of variation in school outcomes
explained by all school variables is .30 for
achievement (p <.001), .34 for aspiration (p
<.001) and .27 for learning value (p <.001).
According to the model, the percentage of
students who are above 15 percentile on
standardized tests is predicted as 90.68% for
non-uniform schools and 95.28% for uniform
schools, respectively. The percentage of
students who are likely to go to college after
high school is predicted as 38.18% for non-
uniform schools and 35.98% for uniform
schools. The percentage of students who value
academic achievement is predicted as 49.35%
for non-uniform schools and 52.48% for
uniform schools.
Additionally, principals’ perceptions
of school violence, actual school violence
measured by number of students who
committed in offenses and high-crime in
school area show negative relationships with
achievement, aspiration, and learning value (p
<.001).
Discussion
This study explored whether or not
uniform policies have positive influences on
school safety and school outcomes. Analyzed
data of 387 urban elementary schools from
SSOCS 2007-2008 had results from the
current study as follows.
First, the results of the study do not
support that uniform polices contribute to
creating a safer school. School principals in
uniform schools perceived that classroom
disorder and school violence (e.g., verbal
abuse of teacher, disrespect to teacher,
classroom disorder and gang activities)
occurred more frequently than their
counterparts in non-uniform schools.
Interestingly, principals in uniform schools
perceived more violent incidents between
students and teachers rather than between
students. There could be potential conflicts
between students and school staff in uniform
schools, because students seem to view
uniform policies as restricting their freedom of
expression and may not believe in the benefits
of the policies (DaCosta, 2006). It is
recommended that principals reconsider when
they adopt uniform policies as an alternative
means of promoting an orderly learning
environment. At the same time, the current
findings based on the cross-sectional study
were not able to determine a cause and effect
among the variables, thus future studies should
further examine whether having a uniform
policy causes conflicts between students and
school staff, and if such conflicts lead a school
or school district to adopt a uniform policy.
Regarding school violence measured by
official school records also showed that drug-
related incidents, physical fights and attacks,
insubordination, gang-related incidents and
other disruptions occurred more frequently in
uniform schools than in non-uniform schools.
Urban elementary school principals should be
aware that adopting uniform policies might
not be the answer in increasing school safety.
Second, the results of the study
support the idea that uniform policies
positively influence academic achievement
and learning value among urban elementary
school students. This is an inconsistent result
from previous studies. Brunsma and
Rockquemore (1998) found that uniform
policies decrease achievement in 10
th
graders
and Yeung (2009) found no significant
relationships between uniform policies and
achievement in 2
nd
and 10
th
graders. Such
mixed results could be caused by the use of
different analysis strategies, different control
variables, and students’ grades and school
locations. Based on the findings of the present
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
116
study, urban elementary schools may have
benefits from adopting uniform policies with
an increase in achievement and improved
learning value among students.
Third, the results of the study do not
support that adopting uniform policies tends to
positively influence students’ aspiration. It is
understandable that students prefer not to wear
uniforms and tend to be against uniform
policies, especially when schools start
mandating uniforms without the students’
input on the policy (DaCosta, 2006). Such a
circumstance may develop negative school
experiences and negatively affect students’
intrinsic motivation for further schooling.
Principals in urban elementary schools should
be aware that uniform policies may discourage
students’ future learning motivation.
In conclusion, the study provides little
evidence of the effects of school uniforms on
creating a safer school and promoting
aspiration among urban elementary school
students, yet shows that school uniforms may
increase academic achievement and students’
learning value.
Study Limitations
Although this study highlights the
value of using a nationally representative
sample with multiple control variables to
explore the benefits of school uniform
policies, several cautionary notes should be
applied to the findings. The SSOCS data used
in the study were based on responses at one
point in time in 2008 and therefore constitutes
a cross-sectional data set. The relationships
among the variables cannot be determined as a
cause and effect. This study relied on school
principals’ reports, and lacks the insights of
other stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, and
students). Finally, the public-use of SSOCS
data does not provide information on lunch
status. This study included parental
involvement and information on crime level in
the school area and student’s residence
instead, yet those variables may not fully
measure the socioeconomic status.
References
Anderson, W. (2002). School dress codes
and uniform policies. Policy
Report: Reporting on Policy Issues
in K-12 Educational Management.
Retrieved from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/x
mlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3464/d
ress_code.pdf?sequence=1
Brunsma, D., & Rockquemore, K. A.
(1998). Effects of student uniforms
on attendance, behavior problems,
substance use, and academic
achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 92(1), 53–
62
Draa, V. A. B. (2005). School uniforms in
urban public high schools.
(Unpublished doctoral
Dissertation), Youngstown State
University, Ohio. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED4
97409.pdf.
DaCosta, K. (2006). Dress code blues: An
exploration of urban students'
reactions to a public high school
uniform policy. The Journal of
Negro Education, 75(1), 49-59.
Evans, D. L. (1996). School uniforms: An
`unfashionable' dissent.
Phi Delta
Kappan, 78 (2). Retrieved from
ERIC database. (EJ532355)
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics
Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication, Inc.
Gentile, E., & Imberman, S. A. (2012).
Dressed for success? The effect of
school uniforms on student
achievement and behavior. Journal
of Urban Economics, 7(1), 1-17.
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
117
Han, S. (2010). “A mandatory uniform
policy in urban schools: Findings
from the School Survey on Crime
and Safety 2003-04.” International
Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 5 (8), 1-13.
Hughes, E. (2006). Effects of mandated
school uniforms on student
attendance, discipline referrals and
classroom environment. In D. L.
Brunsma (Ed.). Uniforms in public
schools: A decade of research and
debate (pp.51-77). Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Huss, J. A. (2007). The role of school
uniforms in creating an
academically motivating climate:
Do uniforms influence teacher
expectation? Journal of
Ethnographic and Qualitative
Research, 1, 31-39.
Johnson, W. S. (2010). Analyses of the
impact of school uniforms on
violence in North Carolina public
high schools. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). East
Carolina University, North
Carolina.
Johnston, H. (2009). Student dress codes
and uniforms. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED537953)
Murray, R. K. (1997). The impact of
school uniforms on school climate.
National Association of Secondary
School Principals(NASSP)
Bulletin, 81(593), 106-112.
Polacheck, K. (1996). Uniforms help solve
many school problem. Long Beach
Press-Telegram. Retrieved from
http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/unifor
ms/article_9.cfm.
Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J.
(2012). Indicators of School Crime
and Safety: 2011 (NCES 2012-
002/NCJ 236021). National Center
for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, and
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/20120
02rev.pdf.
Ruddy, S. A., Neiman, S., Hryczaniuk, C.
A., Thomas, T. L., & Parmer, R. J.
(2010). 2007–08 School Survey on
Crime and Safety (SSOCS) Survey
Documentation for Public-Use
Data File Users (NCES 2010-307).
National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/20103
07.pdf.
Sanchez, J. E., Yoxsimer, A., & Hill, G. C.
(2012). Uniforms in the middle
School: Student opinions,
discipline data, and school police
data. Journal of School Violence,
11(4), 345-356.
Stockton, C., & Gullatt, D. E. (2002).
School uniforms: Policies and
procedures. Research in Middle
Level Education, 25(1) 1-13.
Wade, K. K., & Stafford, M. E. (2003).
Public school uniforms: Effect on
perceptions of gang presence,
school climate, and student self-
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
118
perceptions. Education and Urban
Society, 35(4), 399–420.
Wilken, I. (2012). School uniforms:
Tradition, benefit or predicament?
Education as Change, 16(1), 159-
184.
Yeung, R. (2009). Are school uniforms a
good fit? : Results from the ECLS-
K and the NELS. Education
Policy, 23(6), 847-874.
Zernike, K. (2002). Plaidke, K. (2002). As
schools give up requiring
uniforms. The New York Times,
September 13, 2002. Retrieved
from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullp
age.html?res=9A0DE3DE1131F9
30A2575AC0A9649C8B63.
Seunghee Han received her doctoral degree in
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
from the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Her research focuses on school safety, student
problem behavior, discipline policies, corporal
punishment, and international comparative
studies. Dr. Han can be reached at
shhanedu2013@hotmail.com
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
119
Appendix
Table1
Principals’ Perceived School Violence in Uniform Schools and Non-Uniform Schools
N
M
S.D.
95% CI for Mean
Difference
t
Racial/ethnic
tensions
Non-uniform schools
113
.65
.71
-.10, .22
.70
Uniform schools
274
.71
.81
Bullying
Non-uniform schools
113
1.65
.96
-.05, .39
1.52
Uniform schools
274
1.82
1.07
Sexual
harassment
Non-uniform schools
113
.61
.62
-.06, .22
1.08
Uniform schools
274
.69
.68
Verbal abuse of
teacher
Non-uniform schools
113
.61
.68
.26, .60
4.91***
Uniform schools
274
1.04
.99
Disorder in
classroom
Non-uniform schools
113
.31
.62
.20, .54
4.36***
Uniform schools
274
.68
1.02
Disrespect for
teacher
Non-uniform schools
113
.86
.82
.18, .59
3.73*
Uniform schools
274
1.25
1.14
Gang activities
Non-uniform schools
113
.13
.37
.02, .22
2.46*
Uniform schools
274
.25
.58
Cult or extreme
group activities
Non-uniform schools
113
.01
.12
-.04, .01
-1.29
Uniform schools
274
.00
.00
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
Note. df = 385
Han
_______________________________________________________________________________
120
Table 2
School Violence in Uniform Schools and Non-Uniform Schools
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
Note. df = 385
School
violence
N
Mean
S.D.
95% CI for
Mean Difference
t
Firearm or
explosive
device
274
.22
2.73
-.59, .52
-.13
113
.26
1.96
A weapon other
than a firearm
or explosive
device
274
.35
1.13
-.49, .10
-1.29
113
.54
1.75
Drugs
274
.01
.09
-.14, -.03
-2.84***
113
.09
.45
Alcohol
274
.05
.38
-.08, .08
-.05
113
.05
.32
Physical attacks
or fights
274
8.98
20.29
-9.96, -.13
-2.02**
113
14.03
26.68
Insubordination
274
13.43
64.60
-30.98, -1.19
-2.12**
113
29.52
74.95
Gang-related
and hate crimes
274
.09
.50
-1.00, -.19
-2.90***
113
.69
3.32
Disruptions
274
.42
.90
-.49, -.07
-2.63*
113
.70
1.10
Journal of Contemporary Research in Education 3(3)
_______________________________________________________________________________
121
Table 3
Relationships Between Uniform Policies and Educational Outcomes
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
Note. PI refers to parental involvement; LEP refers to limited English proficient students
Achievement Aspiration Learning value
B (SE)
B (SE)
B (SE)
Uniform policies
4.60*** (.29)
-2.22*** (.44)
3.13*** (.41)
PI in school event
2.35*** (.20)
13.35*** (.30)
11.24***(.28)
PI in discipline
-0.24* (.11)
1.71*** (.17)
1.47***(.15)
LEP students
-0.08** (.01)
-0.23*** (.01)
-0.10***(.01)
Special education
Student
0.08*** (.01)
-0.34*** (.01)
0.06***(.01)
Minority students
-1.77*** (.17)
-3.44*** (.26)
-0.70** (.24)
School size
1.90*** (.14)
1.45*** (.21)
0.56** (.20)
Perceived school
violence
-4.58*** (.26)
-6.49*** (.39)
-5.10*** (.37)
School violence
-5.41*** (.20)
-1.62*** (.30)
-4.72*** (.28)
High-crime in
school location
-10.81*** (.52)
-3.60*** (.79)
-13.05*** (.73)
High-crime in
student residence
-4.54*** (.49)
-.73 (.75)
1.43* (.69)
N
387
387
387
Adjusted R
2
.30
.34
.27