Jones of Maricopa County Superior Court (AZ) ruled that mandatory uniform policies do not violate students' free speech rights even when there is no opt-out provision in the school's uniform policy.
A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes.
Most public schools with uniform policies are in poor neighborhoods, emphasizing the class distinctions that uniforms were supposed to eliminate.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 47% of high-poverty public schools required school uniforms, while only 6% of low-poverty public schools required them. It only takes two months for socioeconomic differences to show up again." Uniforms also emphasize racial divisions.
[I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative." The oft-quoted improvements to school safety and student behavior in the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District from 1993-1995 may not have resulted from the introduction of school uniforms.
The study in which the findings were published cautioned that "it is not clear that these results are entirely attributable to the uniform policy" and suggests that the introduction of new school security measures made at the same time may have been partly responsible.
(3-0, 2001), the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school board's right to implement a mandatory uniform policy, stating that requiring uniforms for the purpose of increasing test scores and improving discipline "is in no way related to the suppression of student speech.
[Students] remain free to wear what they want after school hours.
The poll also found that 58% of parents wanted a mandatory uniform policy instated.
(7-2, 1969), which concerned the wearing of black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, confirmed that students' constitutional right to free speech "does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing." Wearing one's own choice of shirt or pants is not the "pure speech" protected by the Constitution.