PRO

School uniforms do not help students an any way at all. The take away students ability to
express themselves through their clothes and how do they reduce bullying at all? Also,
we are entitled to a free education. Therefore, students should not be required to buy
uniforms. There have been studies done on if uniforms help kids academically at all and
almost all of them have shown that uniforms have absolutely no effect at all on kids
academic performance. That's why school uniforms should not be required in schools.

Con

In modern-day society, school uniforms provide many advantages to student"s

education. First off, school uniforms diminish the amount of bullying within schools by
removing the opportunity to judge someone, by their appearance"everyone is dressed the
same thus, judgment is forestalled. As my opponent has stated, school uniforms do
remove the expression threw clothes; however, children find many other forms of
expression: threw gestures, action, and voice"the implementation of school uniforms will
not remove their individuality. If school uniforms were to be used throughout all schools
worldwide, test scores probably would sky-rocket; due to the removal of such
distractions as fashionable apparel. In addition, though school uniforms do cost money to
begin with, it really is not all that much. We are granted the right as Americans to a free,
public education; but this is only true to a degree. Each class has its own fees, advance
placement classes require you to pay a bit of money in order to take the tests to receive
credit; what harm would thirty to forty dollars do? Where it is true that school uniforms
are not necessary, they could provide such advantages as higher academic achievements,
and a decrease upon what bullying does exist.
Note: My opponent stated that there were studies that were preformed, that indicated that
school uniforms have no direct impact upon academic standings; I would not mind
seeing these studies, in the next round.

Pro

Okay, yes, by having everyone dress the same it may reduce some bullying. But, guess
what? It would be such a small difference it wouldn't really matter. The most common
reason people get bullied is their body size or how they act. Uniforms wouldn't help that
at all. Also, uniforms DO take away children's privelege to express themselves and be
who they want to be through their clothing. If you don't allow them to be who they are,
how will they ever learn to just stand out and show their true colors? Bullying is
intolerable, yes, but when kids are bullied sometimes they learn to ignore it and be wo
they are. Some people take the bad with the good and learn to stand up to bullying.
When people are bullied, they often learn things from it when they're older. They learn
to, ignore it, stand up for yourself, etc. School uniforms just take away children's voices
even a little bit more than they already are (as stated by Ducttpaeoverthescars).
Some parents feel that the safety of students is compromised by uniforms. In the events
of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist
attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a
milieu of similarly clothed children. Contrary to popular belief, even with uniforms on,
certain children will get picked on by others. Cliques will still be formed and students
will find ways (such as weight, complexion, financial status) to pass judgment upon their
peers. School uniforms are very often unflattering, and it can damage a child's self-
image. Also, school uniforms are just a Band-Aid on the school violance. And kids that
are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in other schools for having to
wear uniforms.
You said that $30-40 isn't that much. But for some families that is just way too much
money. And we are entitled to a free education. They can still have dress codes because
those do good, but telling students exactly what to wear is just too far.
Here is one of those studies I was talking about:
University of Missouri assistant professor, David Brunsma reached a different
conclusion. In his 2004 book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us
About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, Brunsma reviewed past studies on the
effect of uniforms on academic performance. He also conducted his own analysis of two
enormous databases, the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study and the 1998
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Brunsma concluded that there is no positive
correlation between uniforms and school safety or academic achievement.

Con

1)Rebuttal:
Argument 1: "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all."
My opponent has stated that "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all."
however; he later goes on to say, "Yes, by having everyone dress the same it may reduce
some bullying"" This indicates that my opponent is slightly contradictive, no fault of his
own.

Argument 2: Expression of one"s true self:

My opponent has stated that in order to express one"s self, you must have the right to
dress how one might feel; however, he also stated that: "most common reason people get
bullied is their body size or how they act." This alludes to my statement of, "As my
opponent has stated, school uniforms do remove the expression threw clothes; however,
children find many other forms of expression: threw gestures, action, and voice." Thus,
school uniforms do not remove any such freedom of expression that children cannot
replace by some other form of articulation.

Argument 3: Identification:
My opponent has brought up a very valid point: "In the events of natural disasters or
emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really
hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed
children." In the event of such an event, parents would be incapable of coming to the aid
of their child. It is up to the teachers, or administration, (the adult in charge) to provide
the necessary amount of super-vision to insure the children"s safety. Often times parents
are at work so would be incapable of materializing at the scene of the disaster, to help
their child any way, thus my opponent"s argument is rendered invalid.

Argument 4: "And kids that are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in
other schools for having to wear uniforms."
If a doctrine of mandatory school uniforms for all public schools was enforced, then this
would not be an issue"all students would be warning them, besides those who are home-
schooled; thus, this would not be an issue.

Rebuttal-over

"You said that $30-40 isn't that much. But for some families that is just way too much
money. And we are entitled to a free education. They can still have dress codes because
those do well, but telling students exactly what to wear is just too far."

I did state that $30-40 really would be a minimal impact, compared to the amount of
money that students in "free, public education" currently have to pay. As a senior in high
school, taking three advance placement courses, and participating in three clubs, I have
already had to pay $800.00 in fees. In addition, my little sister who is a freshman, and is
taking no honors or advance placement classes but is partaking in a sport, has already
had to pay $500.00 in fees. Compared to $1300, thirty to forty dollars is insignificant.
My mother makes less than $30000 per year, so I can understand the argument of "That
could be just too much on some people." It is rare in my house hold that we are able to
have meals every night, but even when my sister had to wear uniforms for her school, we
managed.

As for the second half of your statement, what is the difference between a dress code and
school uniforms? The dress code is a doctrine that dictates exactly what you can ware,
by outlining parameters of what you may not ware"hats, belts, flip-flops, etc. are all
examples of things that have made the list, here in the Washoe county of Nevada. School
uniforms provide several advantages"no longer will students have to worry about
whether or not their clothing will be confiscated by the school because of indecent or
"violation of the dress code," protection of their skin in scientific environments will be
insured"lack of open-toed shoes, long pants to provide against acid burns to legs,
etc."protection during physical education, the list goes on. Where it is true to a degree
that cleaks will still exist no matter if there are uniforms or not, the effect of bullying can
still be decreased when considering the aspect of clothing.

My opponent has stated that bullying is bad, but it is ok"people often times live, learn,
and cope"but what about those who have not "lived," or "learned?" Bullying starts in
schools, and spreads to work places. If one is bullied, and survives, that person often
times caries resentment on threw life, returning the bullying favor to those around them.
The original bully continues to do so, and no one learns. For some key examples of when
bullying went too far, and could have been avoided"we only need to look to Amanda
Todd, or the incident at Virginia tech.

Due to lack of time, further arguments will come in round 3. Thank you.

Pro

Argument 1: "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all"

My opponent stated that I was being contradictory by saying "School uniforms do not
help students an any way at all" and "Yes, by having everyone dress the same it may
reduce some bullying" but I also stated that it would effect bullying in such a little way
that it doesn't matter because barely any bullies bully people on what they wear. (And
btw, I'm a girl)
Argument 2: Expression of one's true self
My opponent has stated "School uniforms do remove the expression threw clothes;
however, children find many other forms of expression: threw gestures, action, and
voice." And yes, people can express themselves threw their gestures, actions, and voices
but most people express themselves the most they dress with the different colors and
styles.
Argument 3: Identification
I stated: "In the events of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes,
tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their
child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed children." Their are conditions
where the parents would need to come to the aid of their children and they would need to
identify their children. Like if their was a bad earthquake, fire, tornado, or terrorist attack
and some people got killed or stuck in the rubble and the parents would then leave their
work because they really care about their children.
Argument 4: "And kids that are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in
other schools for having to wear uniforms."
Maybe the home schoolers would bully the public schoolers.

Dress codes just state light restrictions. At my school the dress code is "No butt, no
boobs, no belly". Whereas school uniforms say exactly what you have to wear.
As I stated before "University of Missouri assistant professor, David Brunsma. In his
2004 book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American
Education: A Symbolic Crusade, Brunsma reviewed past studies on the effect of
uniforms on academic performance. He also conducted his own analysis of two
enormous databases, the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study and the 1998
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Brunsma concluded that there is no positive
correlation between uniforms and school safety or academic achievement."
Also, 98% of students that I interviewed said they would be unhappy to be forced to
wear uniforms. If kids are too unhappy they will be likely to drop out.

Con

Rebuttal to my opponent"s rebuttal:

Argument #1:
My opponent has conceded to the correctness of my assertion, to the inaccuracy of her
argument. My opponent has also made a claim""barely any bullies bully people on what
they wear.""without any concrete evidence.

Argument #2:
My opponent has once more, agreed to my statement, that children find many other ways
to express themselves, mean while making an assertion: "but most people express
themselves the most they dress with the different colors and styles." Without any
substantial evidence to enforce her assertion.

Argument #3:
Logically, a parent would not immediately rush to the rescue of their child, in the case of
an extreme natural disaster"even if they were to do so, they would be restricted outside
of the danger zone, until paramedics or other such emergency crew extracted all children
from the destruction. In that event, recognition of the student would not require clothing,
because parent and or guardian would be given permission to identify the wounded or
past. I will concede though, that there are some people out there, who will disregard all
procedures, and attempt to rush to their child"s defense and rescue; in that case, the
clothing would provide a point of approach for the adult"in this case though, more
children"s lives would be put at risk, because an untrained person is attempting to extract
a body from ruble.

Argument #4:
My opponent is drawing at straws, this argument is completely unnecessary, and hurts
my opponent"s case.

End of Rebuttal

Conduct:
My opponents conduct was rather impressive, considering the amount of scrutiny and
rejections to her arguments that I put her threw. I was even impressed by the way she
handled my mistake upon her gender. I give her many props for that.

SNG:
I am mostly blind, from what I could tell (with my screen reader program doing the
reading,) her spelling was relatively flawless; however, her sentence stricter did not very
much. Over all though, I did not have any problems interpreting what she was trying to
say.

Arguments:
For the most part, her arguments were well put together. There was a few issues, covered
in my rebuttals; not, in any way her fault. When there is a bit of biased involved,
emotions tend to override what little judgment granted to us as humans.

Sources:
Her first set of sources were well put together, and when asked for what she had referred
to, she provided it for me. I would recommend to my opponent to post at the bottom a
link, so the voters in her future debates can look at the credibility of her source. Only one
other flaw that I could detect. My opponent brought in a bit of statistics. For anyone who
has taken a statistics course at the university or college level, you know that voluntary
response poles are completely inaccurate. They lack perfect randomization, and the
sample pool is usually relatively low. Not to mention, but the pole would naturally retain
a bit of response biased"those who wish to impress their peers"and under coverage
biased"not everyone might have been asked: jocks, nerds, geeks, etc. I would strongly
advise my opponent to stay away from poles that she self-conducts, unless she is using a
stratified sampling process with a random number table.
Closing statements:

I would like to thank my opponent for the wonderful debate. I would also like to
oppologize to my opponent for referring to her by the wrong gender, during round two. I
will not advise the voters to vote for either Con, or pro"if you have read each round you
will know who to vote for. I wish the best to you all, and now I will bid you adieu

PRO
Seragam sekolah sama sekali tidak membantu siswa. Membawa kemampuan siswa mengekspresikan
diri melalui pakaian mereka dan bagaimana cara mengurangi intimidasi sama sekali? Juga, kita
berhak mendapatkan pendidikan gratis. Oleh karena itu, siswa tidak diharuskan membeli seragam.
Telah ada penelitian yang dilakukan mengenai apakah seragam sama sekali membantu anak-anak
secara akademis dan hampir semuanya menunjukkan bahwa seragam sama sekali tidak berpengaruh
sama sekali pada kinerja akademis anak-anak. Itu sebabnya seragam sekolah tidak diperlukan di
sekolah.

CON
Dalam masyarakat modern, seragam sekolah memberikan banyak keuntungan bagi pendidikan siswa.
Pertama, seragam sekolah mengurangi jumlah intimidasi di dalam sekolah dengan menyingkirkan
kesempatan untuk menilai seseorang, dengan penampilan mereka "semua orang berpakaian sama,
penilaian adalah terhalang Seperti yang telah dinyatakan lawan saya, seragam sekolah menghilangkan
ekspresi yang dilemparkan pakaian; Namun, anak-anak menemukan banyak bentuk ekspresi lainnya:
melemparkan isyarat, tindakan, dan suara "pelaksanaan seragam sekolah tidak akan menghilangkan
individualitas mereka. Jika seragam sekolah digunakan di semua sekolah di seluruh dunia, nilai tes
mungkin akan melonjak; untuk menghilangkan gangguan seperti pakaian modis.Selain itu, meskipun
seragam sekolah menghabiskan banyak biaya untuk memulai, sebenarnya tidak terlalu banyak.Kita
diberi hak sebagai orang Amerika untuk mendapatkan pendidikan publik yang bebas, tapi ini hanya
benar Untuk kelas Setiap kelas memiliki biaya sendiri, kelas penempatan awal mengharuskan Anda
membayar sedikit uang untuk mengikuti tes untuk menerima kredit; kerugian apa yang akan terjadi
tiga puluh sampai empat puluh dolar? Mana benar seragam sekolah tidak Yang diperlukan, mereka
bisa memberi keuntungan seperti prestasi akademis yang lebih tinggi, dan penurunan pada apa yang
dilakukan bullying.
Catatan: Lawan saya menyatakan bahwa ada penelitian yang telah dilakukan sebelumnya, yang
mengindikasikan bahwa seragam sekolah tidak berdampak langsung pada klasemen akademik; Saya
tidak keberatan melihat studi ini, di babak berikutnya.

Pro

Baiklah, ya, dengan membiarkan semua orang berpakaian seperti itu, itu bisa mengurangi beberapa
intimidasi. Tapi coba tebak? Ini akan menjadi perbedaan kecil yang tidak akan terlalu penting. Alasan
paling umum orang diganggu adalah ukuran tubuh mereka atau bagaimana mereka bertindak.
Seragam tidak akan membantu sama sekali. Juga, seragam DO menyingkirkan keistimewaan anak
untuk mengekspresikan diri dan menjadi siapa yang mereka inginkan melalui pakaian mereka. Jika
Anda tidak membiarkan mereka menjadi siapa mereka, bagaimana mereka akan pernah belajar untuk
berdiri dan menunjukkan warna aslinya? Bullying tidak dapat ditolerir, ya, tapi ketika anak-anak
diintimidasi kadang mereka belajar mengabaikannya dan menjadi kenyataan. Beberapa orang
menganggapnya buruk dengan baik dan belajar membela intimidasi. Ketika orang diintimidasi,
mereka sering belajar sesuatu darinya saat mereka lebih tua. Mereka belajar, mengabaikannya,
membela diri, dll. Seragam sekolah hanya mengambil suara anak-anak bahkan sedikit lebih banyak
daripadanya (seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Ducttpaeoverthescars).
Beberapa orang tua merasa bahwa keselamatan siswa dikompromikan dengan seragam. Dalam
kejadian bencana alam atau keadaan darurat, seperti gempa bumi, tornado, kebakaran atau serangan
teroris, akan sangat sulit bagi orang tua untuk mengidentifikasi anak mereka dari tengah lingkungan
anak-anak berpakaian serupa. Berlawanan dengan kepercayaan populer, bahkan dengan seragam,
anak-anak tertentu akan dipecat oleh orang lain. Klien akan tetap terbentuk dan siswa akan
menemukan cara (seperti berat badan, kulit wajah, status keuangan) untuk memberikan penilaian atas
rekan-rekan mereka. Seragam sekolah sangat sering tidak menyenangkan, dan ini bisa merusak citra
diri seorang anak. Juga, seragam sekolah hanyalah sebuah Band Aid pada kekerasan sekolah. Dan
anak-anak yang terpaksa memakai seragam hanya akan diintimidasi oleh anak-anak di sekolah lain
karena harus mengenakan seragam.
Anda mengatakan bahwa $ 30-40 tidak sebanyak itu. Tapi untuk beberapa keluarga itu terlalu banyak
uang. Dan kita berhak mendapatkan pendidikan gratis. Mereka masih bisa memiliki kode berpakaian
karena itu bagus, tapi memberi tahu murid tentang apa yang harus dipakai terlalu jauh.
Inilah salah satu studi yang saya bicarakan:
Asisten profesor University of Missouri, David Brunsma mencapai kesimpulan yang berbeda. Dalam
bukunya tahun 2004, The School Uniform Movement dan What It Tells Us About American
Education: Sebuah Perang Salib Simbolis, Brunsma meninjau kembali studi tentang pengaruh
seragam pada kinerja akademis. Dia juga melakukan analisisnya sendiri terhadap dua database besar,
Studi Longitudinal Pendidikan Nasional 1988 dan Studi Longitudinal Early Childhood 1998.
Brunsma menyimpulkan bahwa tidak ada korelasi positif antara seragam dan keamanan sekolah atau
prestasi akademik.

CON
1) REBUTLE:
Argumen 1: "Seragam sekolah tidak membantu siswa sama sekali."
Lawan saya telah menyatakan bahwa "Seragam sekolah sama sekali tidak membantu siswa sama
sekali." namun; Dia kemudian melanjutkan dengan mengatakan, "Ya, dengan membiarkan semua
orang berpakaian seperti itu, itu bisa mengurangi beberapa intimidasi" "Ini menunjukkan bahwa
lawan saya sedikit kontradiktif, bukan karena kesalahannya sendiri.
Argumen 2: Ekspresi diri sejati seseorang:
Lawan saya telah menyatakan bahwa untuk mengekspresikan diri sendiri, Anda harus memiliki hak
untuk berpakaian bagaimana perasaan orang, namun dia juga menyatakan bahwa: "Alasan paling
umum orang diintimidasi adalah ukuran tubuh mereka atau bagaimana tindakan mereka." Ini
menyinggung pernyataan saya, "Seperti yang dinyatakan lawan saya, seragam sekolah menghapus
ekspresi yang dilemparkan pakaian; Namun, anak-anak menemukan banyak bentuk ekspresi lainnya:
melemparkan isyarat, tindakan, dan suara. "Dengan demikian, seragam sekolah tidak menghilangkan
kebebasan berekspresi semacam itu sehingga anak-anak tidak dapat menggantikan beberapa bentuk
artikulasi lainnya.

Argumen 3: Identifikasi:
Lawan saya telah mengemukakan poin yang sangat valid: "Dalam kejadian bencana alam atau
keadaan darurat, seperti gempa bumi, tornado, kebakaran atau serangan teroris, akan sangat sulit bagi
orang tua untuk mengidentifikasi anak mereka dari tengah lingkungan yang sama. berpakaian anak-
anak. Jika acara semacam itu, orang tua tidak akan bisa membantu anak mereka. Terserah kepada
guru, atau administrasi, (orang dewasa yang bertanggung jawab) untuk memberikan jumlah supervisi
yang diperlukan untuk memastikan keselamatan anak-anak. Sering kali orang tua bekerja sehingga
tidak mampu mewujudkannya di tempat kejadian. bencana, untuk membantu anak mereka dengan
cara apapun, sehingga argumen lawan saya dianggap tidak benar.

Argumen 4: "Dan anak-anak yang dipaksa memakai seragam hanya akan diintimidasi oleh anak-anak
di sekolah lain karena harus mengenakan pakaian seragam."
Jika doktrin seragam sekolah wajib untuk semua sekolah negeri ditegakkan, maka ini tidak akan
menjadi masalah "semua siswa akan memperingatkan mereka, selain mereka yang bersekolah di
rumah, dengan demikian, ini tidak akan menjadi masalah.

Bantahan atas

"Anda mengatakan bahwa $ 30-40 tidak sebanyak itu, tapi untuk beberapa keluarga dengan uang
terlalu banyak Dan kita berhak mendapatkan pendidikan gratis, mereka masih bisa memiliki kode
berpakaian karena itu bagus, tapi memberi tahu siswa apa sebenarnya untuk dipakai terlalu jauh. "

Saya menyatakan bahwa $ 30-40 benar-benar akan menjadi dampak minimal, dibandingkan dengan
jumlah uang yang siswa "bebaskan, pendidikan umum" saat ini harus membayar. Sebagai senior di
SMA, mengikuti tiga kursus penempatan di muka, dan berpartisipasi dalam tiga klub, saya harus
membayar biaya $ 800,00. Selain itu, adik perempuan saya yang adalah seorang mahasiswa baru, dan
tidak mengambil kelas kehormatan atau penempatan di muka, namun ikut serta dalam olahraga, telah
membayar biaya sebesar $ 500,00. Dibandingkan dengan $ 1300, tiga puluh sampai empat puluh dolar
tidak signifikan. Ibuku menghasilkan kurang dari $ 30000 per tahun, jadi saya bisa mengerti argumen
"Itu bisa terlalu banyak pada beberapa orang." Sangat jarang di rumah saya berpendapat bahwa kita
dapat makan setiap malam, tapi bahkan ketika kakak perempuan saya harus mengenakan seragam
untuk sekolahnya, kami berhasil.

Sedangkan untuk bagian kedua dari pernyataan Anda, apa bedanya antara kode berpakaian dan
seragam sekolah? Kode berpakaian adalah doktrin yang menentukan apa yang bisa Anda perbaiki,
dengan menguraikan parameter dari apa yang mungkin Anda tidak menggunakan "topi, ikat pinggang,
sandal jepit, dll. Semua contoh hal yang telah membuat daftar, di sini, di daerah Washoe dari Nevada
Seragam sekolah memberikan beberapa keuntungan "tidak lagi siswa akan khawatir apakah pakaian
mereka akan disita oleh sekolah karena tidak senonoh atau" melanggar kode berpakaian,
"perlindungan kulit mereka di lingkungan ilmiah akan diasuransikan. "Kurangnya sepatu open-toed,
celana panjang untuk mengatasi luka bakar asam ke kaki, dll." Perlindungan selama pendidikan
jasmani, daftarnya terus berlanjut. Bila benar sampai tingkat yang membelah masih akan ada tidak
masalah apakah ada seragam atau tidak, efek bullying masih bisa menurun saat mempertimbangkan
aspek pakaian.
Lawan saya telah menyatakan bahwa intimidasi itu buruk, tapi tidak apa-apa "orang sering
kali hidup, belajar, dan mengatasi" tapi bagaimana dengan mereka yang belum "hidup," atau
"belajar?" Bullying dimulai di sekolah, dan menyebar ke tempat kerja. Jika seseorang
diintimidasi, dan bertahan, orang itu sering kali mengalami karies pada masa lalu,
mengembalikan kebaikan bullying kepada orang-orang di sekitar mereka. Pengganggu asli
terus melakukannya, dan tidak ada yang belajar. Untuk beberapa contoh kunci saat bullying
berjalan terlalu jauh, dan bisa dihindari "kita hanya perlu melihat ke Amanda Todd, atau
kejadian di teknisi Virginia.

Karena kekurangan waktu, argumen lebih lanjut akan datang di babak 3. Terima kasih.

Pro
Argumen 1: "Seragam sekolah tidak membantu siswa sama sekali"
Lawan saya menyatakan bahwa saya sedang bertengkar dengan mengatakan "Seragam sekolah sama
sekali tidak membantu siswa sama sekali" dan "Ya, dengan membiarkan semua orang berpakaian
seperti itu, itu bisa mengurangi beberapa intimidasi" tapi saya juga menyatakan bahwa hal itu akan
mempengaruhi intimidasi dalam hal itu. sedikit cara itu tidak masalah karena hampir tidak ada
pengganggu yang menggertak orang atas apa yang mereka kenakan. (Dan btw, saya seorang gadis)
Argumen 2: Ekspresi diri sejati seseorang
Lawan saya telah menyatakan "Seragam sekolah menghapus ekspresi itu dengan melemparkan
pakaian, namun anak-anak menemukan banyak bentuk ekspresi lainnya: melemparkan isyarat,
tindakan, dan suara." Dan ya, orang bisa mengekspresikan diri mereka melemparkan isyarat, tindakan,
dan suara mereka tapi kebanyakan orang mengekspresikan diri mereka yang paling mereka
berpakaian dengan berbagai warna dan gaya.
Argumen 3: Identifikasi
Saya menyatakan: "Dalam kejadian bencana alam atau keadaan darurat, seperti gempa bumi, tornado,
kebakaran atau serangan teroris, akan sangat sulit bagi orang tua untuk mengidentifikasi anak mereka
dari tengah lingkungan anak-anak berpakaian serupa." Kondisi mereka di mana orang tua perlu
membantu anak-anak mereka dan mereka perlu mengidentifikasi anak-anak mereka. Seperti jika
mereka adalah gempa bumi yang buruk, kebakaran, tornado, atau serangan teroris dan beberapa orang
terbunuh atau terjebak dalam reruntuhan dan orang tua kemudian akan meninggalkan pekerjaan
mereka karena mereka benar-benar peduli dengan anak-anak mereka.
Argumen 4: "Dan anak-anak yang dipaksa memakai seragam hanya akan diintimidasi oleh anak-anak
di sekolah lain karena harus mengenakan pakaian seragam."
Mungkin anak sekolah di rumah akan menggertak anak sekolah umum.

Kode berpakaian hanya menjelaskan batasan cahaya. Di sekolah saya kode berpakaian adalah "Tidak
ada pantat, tidak ada payudara, tidak ada perut". Sedangkan seragam sekolah mengatakan dengan
tepat apa yang harus Anda kenakan.
Seperti yang saya nyatakan sebelumnya "asisten profesor University of Missouri, David Brunsma.
Dalam bukunya tahun 2004, The School Uniform Movement dan What It Tells Us About American
Education: Sebuah Perang Salib Simbolis, Brunsma meninjau kembali studi tentang pengaruh
seragam pada pertunjukan akademis. juga melakukan analisisnya sendiri terhadap dua database besar,
Studi Longitudinal Pendidikan Nasional 1988 dan Studi Longitudinal Longitudinal 1998. Brunsma
menyimpulkan bahwa tidak ada korelasi positif antara seragam dan keamanan sekolah atau prestasi
akademis. "
Juga, 98% siswa yang saya wawancarai mengatakan bahwa mereka tidak senang dipaksa mengenakan
seragam. Jika anak-anak terlalu tidak bahagia, kemungkinan besar mereka akan putus sekolah.