(Get Answer)

writing project and need an explanation and answer to help me learn. Essay1 is writing a summary of the proven research (2-3 pages). Essay2 is writing an argument essay (2-3 pages). Essay3 is a research essay that consists of 5 parts: outline, source, bibliography, draft, and the final essay (6-8 pages). Requirements: Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy forChildren at RiskVolume 6Issue 2Nutrition and Food InsecurityArticle 72015Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District'sPerspectiveJennifer G. Lengyel MS, RDN, LDHouston Independent School District, jgriffi4@houstonisd.orgNan Cramer RDN, LDHouston Independent School District, ncramer@houstonisd.orgAmanda Oceguera MS, RDN, LDHouston Independent School District, aoceguer@houstonisd.orgLana Pigao MAHouston Independent School District, ypigao@houstonisd.orgHouston Independent School District, Nutrition Services DepartmentFollow this and additional works at:http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatriskTheJournal of Applied Research on Childrenis brought to you for free andopen access byCHILDREN AT RISKatDigitalCommons@The TexasMedical Center. It has a"cc by-nc-nd" Creative Commons license"(Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives) For more information,please contactdigitalcommons@exch.library.tmc.eduRecommended CitationLengyel, Jennifer G. MS, RDN, LD; Cramer, Nan RDN, LD; Oceguera, Amanda MS, RDN, LD; Pigao, Lana MA; and HoustonIndependent School District, Nutrition Services Department (2015) "Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's Perspective,"Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 7.Available at:http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 Introduction For Houston Independent School District (ISD) Nutrition Services, managing the school food operations of the seventh largest school district in the nation can be a great challenge and opportunity. It takes the collaboration of more than 14 departments and 2,400 employees to serve 280,000 meals every day across Houston, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation. To be able to create a menu that balances nutrition with student acceptability is an incredible feat. We are consistently trying to provide meals that students will consume while enjoying the health benefits. A recent series of emails and phone calls from parents concerned about the sugar content of Houston ISD’s school breakfasts revealed that a new issue had risen to the surface. Some parents were counting the grams of sugar in our breakfast menus and reported that they believed there was too much sugar to be healthy for children. This prompted us to look closely at the sugar content of our breakfast items and the source of the sugar. Houston ISD, along with all school districts participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, follows a strict set of regulations set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010. This Act put in place a new set of nutrition standards and meal patterns for school breakfast and lunch in response to the growing epidemic of childhood obesity in the U.S. The nutrition standards limit calories, saturated fat, and sodium, and ban artificial trans-fat in school meals (see Table 1). HHFKA also made a significant change to the breakfast meal pattern by increasing the fruit minimum from a half cup to one cup and having no requirement for the protein rich meat/meat alternate food group. Additionally, although we have consciously decided not to place specific sweet items on our breakfast menu, the sugar content of our breakfasts is being scrutinized. Ironically, the federal standards do not address the sugar content in school breakfasts. Whether this is an oversight or the authors of the law intentionally did not limit sugar, the result is the same: breakfast meals that are higher in sugar because of the requirement of one cup of fruit, 1 cup of milk (both which have natural sugar). Furthermore, restrictions on fat and the lack of requirement for protein foods result in carbohydrates, including natural sugar, as the main source of calories. Herein, we would like to provide the perspective of a school food service organization concerning sugar in breakfast, and present the 1Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 challenges and efforts made to provide students with healthy, well-balanced school breakfasts. National school lunch program and the school breakfast program background and history In an effort to describe our viewpoint about the sugar content of our breakfast menus, it is important to provide the reader with the context of the school meal programs history and purpose. School meal nutrition standards, which were initially put in place to assure adequate nutrition for an underfed population of children, have been adapted through the years to meet the current standards that aim to address an overfed, yet undernourished, population of children. In the early part of the 20th century, individual cities and states had enacted various versions of a school lunch program to improve nutrition and feed needy children. Due to a limit in state and local funds, the federal government stepped in, and in 1946, the 79th legislature enacted the National School Lunch Act. The purpose of the Act was “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children and…assist the States, in providing an adequate expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.”1 Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program were required to meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary [of Agriculture] on the basis of tested nutritional research."1 The aim of these meal patterns was to provide school-aged children with one-third of their daily nutrient requirements. As dietary recommendations evolved with the expansion of nutrition research, various changes were made to the school lunch meal requirements during the subsequent 63 years leading up to the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act in 2010. The School Breakfast Program began in 1966 as a pilot-grant program to provide assistance serving breakfast to nutritionally needy children. By 1975, the program was permanently authorized by congress. The breakfast meal pattern was designed to provide one-quarter of the daily nutrient requirements of school-aged children. Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 and USDA Breakfast Meal Pattern The current Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) nutrition standards are based on the 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines and recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine. The guidelines recommend a balance of calories and physical activity, increased intake of fruits and vegetables, 2Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 whole grains, low fat and fat-free dairy, and a reduction in saturated fats, trans fats, sodium, cholesterol and sugar.2 In addressing sugar in the diet, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend the reduction of added sugar and sugar sweetened beverages without quantifying a recommended amount of total sugar per day. The guidelines point out that a reduction of added sugars would lower calories without compromising the nutritional quality of the diet. The HHFKA breakfast and lunch nutrition standards generally follow the U.S. Dietary Guidelines but fail to address added sugar in foods. Table 1 outlines the USDA meal pattern and nutrition guidelines for school breakfast.3 The USDA has strived to improve student health and reduce childhood obesity through HHFKA in 2010; however, there have been numerous challenges in implementing those changes. For example, the recent enforcement of the additional breakfast requirements and how it affects the sugar content in school breakfasts. The current breakfast meal pattern requires a minimum of one full cup of fruit, one full cup of milk, and one ounce whole grain offered each day. In addition, there must be a minimum of four items available for students to select, and three must be chosen, at least one of which is a fruit or vegetable, in order for the cost of that meal to be reimbursed by the federal government. The breakfast items are cumulatively analyzed on a daily and weekly basis to also ensure that the menu is meeting calorie requirements, saturated fat, and sodium restrictions (see Table 1). Of note, there are no requirements for meat or meat alternates in the USDA breakfast meal pattern, meaning that fruit, milk, and grains that provide calories mainly through carbohydrates, are the predominate foods at school breakfast. These regulations can greatly affect the breakfast menus, and in regards to the sugar content, can make it challenging for a school district to minimize added sugar due to calorie minimums, the inability to distinguish added vs. natural sugar, budget constraints, availability and variety of breakfast items, and many other factors described herein. 3Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 Table 1 Summary of Current USDA Breakfast Meal Pattern Requirements Houston ISD Nutrition Services Breakfast Program and Challenges in Minimizing Sugar Content Feeding a population of students, 80% of which are from economically disadvantaged homes, is a significant responsibility. Many of our students receive the majority of their nutrient intake from school meals. Students may receive up to three meals and a snack each day at school. The Houston ISD menus are developed through a collaboration of dietitians, chefs, cost analyst, operations, and production teams. Breakfast is especially important in providing nutrition and improving academic performance, according to research cited by the Food Research and Action Center.4 In an effort to improve access to breakfast at Houston ISD, in 2009 we began implementation of a program called First Class Breakfast that offers free breakfast to all students at all of our schools. Currently, we serve more than 118,000 students each morning. Serving breakfast in the classroom ensures students have the opportunity to eat breakfast if they did not eat at home. Often parents and school buses drop off students just before the bell rings, making it impossible for students to eat a traditional school breakfast in the cafeteria. In addition, most of the cafeterias are not designed to accommodate service to the entire student body in a single breakfast period. Serving breakfast in the classroom also removes the stigma that school breakfast is exclusively for economically disadvantaged students. Regardless of the roadblocks, we 4Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 make every effort to provide one of the most important “school supplies” children need to be successful in school and beyond. Table 2 Sample HISD Breakfast Menu There are two different methods of breakfast service in Houston ISD schools in accordance with USDA regulations: straight serve and offer vs. serve. With the straight serve method, students must take all foods on the menu. With the offer vs. serve method, students are only required to take three food items, one of which must be a ½ cup of fruit. This means that they do not need to take both fruits offered, nor are they required to take the milk. Adding up all of the grams of sugar on our entire breakfast menu does not give the correct amount of sugar that students would consume in most cases because the students might not select all of the items offered. An example would be if the menu offered pancakes, cereal bar, banana, apple juice and milk. A student could select the pancakes, banana and milk only. Or he/she could choose the cereal bar, banana and apple juice, etc. Offer vs. serve method helps to reduce waste in the 5Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 breakfast programs by allowing students the option to select what food they want to eat. The grams of sugar and calories in the offer vs. serve menu reflect the averages of the foods the students actually choose. As apparent from Table 3, the straight serve menu contains more sugar and calories than the offer vs. serve menu since students are taking all the menu items. It is important to note that for both methods of service the total average calories and grams of sugar are based on what the students received for breakfast, not what they actually consumed. Only a series of tray waste studies would allow us to determine actual sugar intake among our students. Table 3 Calorie and Sugar Weekly Averages for Breakfast As mentioned previously, the USDA breakfast meal pattern requires fruit, milk, and whole grain to be offered at each breakfast; all are sources of carbohydrates. Federal regulations for the school breakfast program set a range of minimum and maximum number of calories allowed for a Kindergarten-5th grade breakfast at 350-500 calories. The Institute of Medicine recommends 45% of calories come from carbohydrate. In that case, the breakfast would have about 56 grams of carbohydrate. Unfortunately, the federal guidelines for breakfast result in a breakfast meal that has a higher percentage of calories coming from carbohydrate and potentially in the form of sugar. It is important to mention that the other sources of calories in a meal are protein and fat, but according to the HHFKA Nutrition Standards, there is no requirement for protein in school breakfast and many of the breakfast items offered are required to be low in fat, such as the milk. However, schools may substitute meat/meat alternatives for grain components after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. Due to the lack in requirement for meat/meat alternate items and the typical higher cost of these items, meat/meat alternates are not offered daily. If offered, they are usually categorized as a grain component in order to meet the breakfast meal pattern daily minimums. This results in school breakfast menus that are missing a considerate amount of protein and calories from protein (4 kcal/g) and potentially contain higher amounts of carbohydrates and sugars. 6Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 Cumulatively, carbohydrate sources can contribute to the sugar content at breakfast, however, it is important to note the two different types of sugar: natural and added. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, natural sugars are those found in whole foods like fluid milk and milk products (lactose) and fruit (fructose); sugars that are added to foods for preservation, processing, or palatability purposes are called “added sugars.” In one school breakfast meal, an average of 37g of total sugar is attributed to natural sugars found in milk and fruit alone. Based on the current information available and data from Table 3, we can estimate 6-16 g of sugar in our menus is derived from added sugar. However, currently the accuracy of the estimated total grams of added sugar cannot be verified due to a lack in label differentiation between the two types of sugar. Image 1. FDA Proposed Label One of the significant challenges in controlling the sugar content at breakfast is the ability to analyze the amount of total added sugar in a menu and in individual breakfast items. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that a person consume no more than 10% of calories from added sugar. However, most nutrition fact labels for foods do not distinguish natural vs. added sugar; it appears only as “sugar” that includes both added and naturally occurring. Currently, the FDA is proposing a new label to solve this issue by requiring manufacturers to list the amount of sugar added during the production process and therefore differentiate the two types of sugar (see Image 1)5. In the interim, a lack of nutrition facts label information makes it difficult to distinguish natural from added sugars, and therefore a challenge to reduce total added sugar in school breakfast, despite Houston ISD Nutrition Services’ efforts (see Table 2 for menu example). 7Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 The USDA School Breakfast Program requirements changed in 2014, increasing fruit servings to a full cup for breakfast. Due to this requirement change we have added juice since many fruits such as a whole banana, equals only half a cup of fruit; instead of giving students two bananas we offer one banana and ½ a cup of juice to meet the requirement. Each half-cup of fruit adds 10 to 15 grams of sugar to the breakfast meal. We offer dried fruit one to two times a week on high school menus for variety and due to high acceptability, adding 22-24 grams in mostly added sugar. When serving more than 118,000 breakfasts per day with a less than one-dollar budget per breakfast, providing nutritious student accepted items while meeting federal requirements can be arduous. The additional fruit offering results in an additional cost that then takes away from the amount that can be spent on higher quality or more expensive breakfast items. For example, on average most fresh fruit items cost $0.20 for ½ cup, then because 1 cup of fruit must be offered at breakfast, fruit alone can contribute to 50% or more of the total food cost for the entire breakfast meal. Often, lower cost fruit juice is served to meet the fruit requirement, maintain cost constraints, and provide variety to the fruit offerings. In addition, fruit accessibility and diversity has been a challenge. With the increase in required daily fruit offerings at breakfast in combination with years of drought and environmental issues, many school districts, especially large districts including Houston ISD, have experienced numerous produce shortages and resulted in a lack of selection. We prefer to serve fresh fruit, however we are limited on the variety of whole fruit on the breakfast menu due to our limited budget and narrowed vendor availability. While we do sometimes get fruits from the USDA Foods Commodity program to assist with the cost, we only have them available on a limited basis. In addition, principals have requested that certain fruits, such as whole oranges, not be served in the classrooms for breakfast because they are messy, further limiting the variety of fruit. In many cases, there have been whole fruits that were planned to be served on the breakfast menu but due to crop shortages, inclement weather patterns or price fluctuations, those fruits had to be replaced with canned, dried or juice alternatives. These alternatives can be more easily available or affordable, but at the same time less nutrient dense and/or contain more added sugar for food preservation purposes, functional attributes, and palatability. These barriers combined restrict accessibility and increase budgetary constraints, which unfortunately makes fresh fruit a limited commodity. 8Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 Houston ISD Nutrition Services’ Efforts to Reduce Sugar Content in Breakfast With 80% of the Houston ISD population being economically disadvantaged, it is important to us that students consume the food in school in order to get key nutrients they may not be getting outside of school. Albeit at times, there can be many challenges to creating healthy school breakfast meals, Houston ISD Nutrition Services is aware of elevated sugar content and has been making efforts to reduce sugar levels in school breakfasts. Chocolate milk is not offered at breakfast; only skim or low-fat milk is available. Also, we do not offer breakfast sweet rolls or pastries with icing or excessive added sugar, including pastry tarts, cinnamon rolls, donuts, honey buns, etc. We serve whole-grain rich versions of grain items that are lower in sugar, such as reduced-sugar breakfast cereals. Many of the breakfast products that we purchase are actually lower in fat, sodium, and sugar and higher in fiber and complex carbohydrates than their commercial equivalent. We are required to serve whole grains, low fat proteins, low sodium and we strive to serve low sugar products. For example, the Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal we serve at Houston ISD is whole grain and lower in sugar than the regular version sold in a grocery store. However, our students are familiar with this product so the consumption rate is high. These efforts aid in balancing food flavors with student acceptance so that students are consuming the breakfast items because “it’s not nutrition if they don’t eat it” according to Registered Dietitian, Dayle Hayes. Furthermore, Houston ISD Nutrition Services is continually meeting with manufacturers to discuss removing unnecessary additives from their ingredients and improve their products. Many of the manufacturers have responded by eliminating additives such as Mono Sodium Glutamate. We will continue to collaborate with manufacturers and push for reformulation of products to reduce added sugar levels in breakfast items. Additionally, Houston ISD Nutrition Services makes efforts to control the ingredients in school food by producing in-house, semi-homemade items in our state-of-the-art centralized food production facility. Our research and development chefs and production team create items such as whole-grain-rich beef kolaches, sweet potato spice and apple muffins, and chicken biscuits. With scratch made production items, we can include whole grain, complex carbohydrates and techniques such as using vegetables like sweet potatoes or whole fruits like apples and blueberries, to add flavor and nutrition to our recipes instead of added sugar. 9Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 We recognize that whole fruit has more nutritional benefits and fiber than fruit juice and less added sugar than dried fruit so when possible, fresh fruit appears on the breakfast menus. Houston ISD Nutrition Services has made great strides to build relationships with produce vendors and implement processes to aid in procuring more whole fruits and increasing the variety of options offered. We have also begun to participate in programs such as Harvest of the Month and Farm-to-School in which there is a focus on local and seasonal purchasing and nutrition education of fruits and vegetables. These programs have allowed us to increase locally sourced produce, educate students and encourage consumption of fresh fruits. In addition to these efforts, Nutrition Services will be reducing the number of days that juice is offered and dried cranberries will be removed from the elementary menu to further reduce sugar content. As mentioned previously, there is no USDA requirement for protein, meat or meat alternates. Nutrition Services has committed to increasing the meat and meat alternates to replace grain products when possible by adding items to the menu such as cheese toast, sausage biscuit, breakfast taco, breakfast egg sandwich, etc. This will aid in achieving adequate calories and protein without adding carbohydrates or added sugar. In an effort to reduce food waste, most of our schools serve breakfast using the “offer vs. serve” method. Since this type of service does not require students to take all items, it helps to reduce overall food waste. Also, throughout the school year, we have conducted informal plate waste studies and taste tests to verify that items are not only healthy but also accepted and consumed by students. We plan to continue these techniques and are currently in the process of formulating a more standardized procedure that will further aid in our ability to create and menu different breakfast items with less added sugar while reducing food waste. School food service is not just about putting food on a tray. Houston ISD Nutrition Services recognizes the importance of serving school meals to students and the opportunities that lie in shaping their eating behaviors and life-long health. School food is a conduit for nutrition education and is the reason we make every effort to incorporate nutrition messaging into the school cafeteria and beyond. Our nutrition education and community outreach dietitians work with our culinary team to reach out to students and communities to educate on why we serve nutritious foods. 10Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 Conclusion School nutrition programs follow the strict guidelines set forth by the USDA and within that framework of the meal pattern and the nutrition guidelines is a limit to how much the sugar content at breakfast can be decreased. In the solutions outlined above, we strive to reduce added sugars while operating a program within our budgetary constraints and with menu items that the students will consume. Our breakfasts provide nutrition for growing bodies and fuel for the minds of our students so that they can achieve their academic potential and therefore require special consideration and attention. If the public and parents desire more reduction in the sugar content of breakfast, seeking policy changes at the federal level would be required. These changes could be to require meat/meat alternates, reduction in fruit requirement, and an increase in funding to include more protein items and higher quality products. Parents can impact the nutrition standards by providing feedback during USDA public comment periods for the School Breakfast Program and voicing opinions to local, state, and federal policy makers. Changes in the Nutrition Facts Labels to distinguish added sugars would also aid in our selection of food items with less added sugar for our menus. New labeling could also drive the food industry to reformulate items with less added sugar and develop new savory products with higher protein, adequate calories, and lower sugar content. We will continue to listen to our communities concerns and to seek solutions in order to serve students the most nutritious breakfast meals. 11Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's PerspectivePublished by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015 References: 1. Public Law 79-396; Stat. 231 Congress, June 4, 1946. 2. 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2010/ . Published December 2010. Updated December 7, 2015. Accessed October 1, 2015. 3. Nutrition Standards for School Meals: New Meal Patterns and Dietary Specifications. USDA Food and Nutrition Service website. http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals . Published January 2012. Updated August 11, 2015. Accessed October 5, 2015. 4. School Meals and School Wellness Publications: Breakfast for Learning Brief. Food Research and Action Center website. http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf Published Spring 2014. Accessed October 5, 2015. 5. Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm Updated October 23, 2015. Accessed October 2, 2015. 12Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7 ASSIGNMENT: For this essay, you will engage in a 2-3 page summary and response dialogue with the source (not including cover pages, headings, reference lists, or reflection questions). This will involve providing a detailed summary of the source's argument and responding to that argument with your position based on the information provided in the source. A. Assignment Guidelines DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines. 1. Article Summary ❒ Have you introduced the title of the article and the author by name? ❒ Have you communicated the source's purpose? ❒ Have you included all of the source's main points, using page-numbered citations as you paraphrase? ❒ Have you restated the source's argument in your own words? 2. Article Response ❒ Have you provided your perspective on the source's argument? ❒ Have you used at least two specific, cited examples from the source to illustrate why you either agree or disagree with the argument? 3. Reflection ❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses? ❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main assignment? B. Reflection Questions DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions. What ideas originally came to mind when you first read through the article? Did your initial response to the article change after reading it for a second time? (3-4 sentences) How does paying attention to the way you respond to a source help you formulate your stance on a topic? (2-3 sentences) Construct a Rogerian Argument ASSIGNMENT: As you learned in this unit, a Rogerian argument is one that presents two sides of a debate and argues for a solution that will satisfy both sides. Given the two articles linked below that present opposing sides of an issue (mandatory uniforms in schools), construct your own 2-3 page Rogerian argument essay in which you attempt to arrive at a concrete, workable solution or "middle ground." The essay should contain the following components: ❒ I) An introduction that presents both sources (i.e., author, title, year of publication, and position in the debate) and your middle ground thesis statement. ❒ II) A body paragraph that summarizes the pro-uniform rationales. ❒ III) A body paragraph that summarizes the anti-uniform rationales. ❒ IV) A body paragraph that critically compares and contrasts both sides of the debate. ❒ V) A conclusion that further develops your proposed middle ground solution and demonstrates how it satisfies both sides of the debate. Article 1: "School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies" Article 2: "Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms" A. Assignment Guidelines DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines. 1. Introduction ❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 1? ❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 2? ❒ Have you ended the introduction with a thesis statement/claim that presents a clear, workable solution that could be viewed as a "middle ground" between the two sides? 2. Body Paragraphs ❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented in Article 1 in the first body paragraph? ❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented Article 2 in the second body paragraph? ❒ When using direct quotations, have you supplemented them with your own explanation of their relevance? ❒ Have you adequately compared and contrasted both sides of the debate (with cited examples from the articles) in the third body paragraph? 3. Conclusion ❒ Does your expanded claim address both sides of the issue, including specific points raised in the articles? ❒ Have you backed up your claim using cited facts from both sides of the argument? 4. Reflection ❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses? ❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main assignment? B. Reflection DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions. How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better understand the topic that’s being discussed? Why is it a good practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4 sentences) How might the Rogerian approach help you gain insight into your own argumentative essay? (2-3 sentences) © 2015 Ohio Valley Philosophy of Education Society DRESSING DIVERSITY: POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE AND THE CASE OF SCHOOL UNIFORMS Samantha Deane Loyola University Chicago In The New York Times parenting blog, Motherlode, Debra Monroe writes about Òthe dynamic that makes public school democraticÑa place to confront the humanity of others,Ó because she is concerned with what schooling teaches children about diversity and difference.1 This paper begins with a similar assumption and concern; I too think schools ought to be places where children learn to confront the humanity and difference of others, and I am concerned with how children are taught to do so. Through an analysis of school uniform policies and theories of social justice, I argue not that children consciously experience school uniforms as uniforming, but that school uniforms and their foregoing policies assume that confronting strangersÑan imperative of living in a democratic polityÑis something that requires seeing sameness instead of recognizing difference. Imbuing schooling with a directive that says schools ought to be places where children learn to confront the humanity of others requires that we ask questions about how educational policies teach children to deal with human difference. Broadly speaking, uniform policies undergird the assumption that a childÕs capacity to confront difference is unimportant.2 To consider the ways in which school uniform policies unjustly teach children to disregard difference so that they can reasonably participate in public and school life, this paper engages in a rich conversation about social justice. Fundamentally, social justice is about recognizing grave injustices between individual persons and groups of people living in, or being prevented from living in, the world. The works of John Rawls, Iris Marion Young, and Nancy Fraser represent three common theoretical constructs for dealing with social justice. Rawls comes from a social contract position and constructs a floating theory of justice based on a Kantian self that ultimately addresses injustices by way of redistribution.3 Young aligns herself with critical theory, founds her critique in the messiness of the Òreal world,Ó and tackles injustice by 1 Debra Monroe, ÒWhen Elite Parents Dominate Volunteers, Children Lose.Ó Motherlode (blog), New York Times (January 19, 2014), http://nyti.ms/19EIwRF. 2 I am purposefully not differentiating between public and private schooling, because all schooling situated in a democratic context ought to teach children to confront the humanity of others. Moreover, children are a part of the larger ÒpublicÓ in a Deweyan sense. 3 John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). Deane Ð Dressing Diversity 112 advocating for a politics of difference.4 All the while, Fraser works out a bivalent conception of social justice that bridges the divide between the spheres of distribution and recognition.5 RawlsÕs Justice as Fairness: A Restatement is the theoretical backdrop against which this paper employs YoungÕs Justice and the Politics of Difference and FraserÕs ÒSocial Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and ParticipationÓ to speak to the ways in which diversity can and should be Òundressed,Ó and therefore, ÒaddressedÓ by children in school. To ÒaddressÓ diversity, the first section of this paper will focus on the language of school uniform policies. Policy makers tell us that school uniform policies are meant to: minimize disruptive behavior, remove socioeconomic tension, and maintain high academic standards.6 There is nothing unjust about wanting to reduce socioeconomic difference, nor valuing high academic standards. What is unjust is that these policies do not remove socioeconomic difference, nor cure disruptive behavior. School uniform policies dress difference; they do not address it. Accordingly, in an attempt to ÒundressÓ difference, and, perhaps, ÒredressÓ the injustice of school uniform policies, the second section of this paper argues that schools ought to be places where children are confronted with the humanity of others. The argument is that removing uniforms should not be a mere undressing that leaves children to deal with difference and humiliation on their own, but that we must redress the injustice by philosophically resituating schooling. Finally, the concluding section will sketch out what it might mean to philosophically resituate schools and to think of school life as a reflection of city life where, Òthe public is heterogeneous, plural, and playful, a place where people witness and appreciate the diverse cultural expressions that they do not share and do not fully understand.Ó7 Schools in this vision are not apolitical sanctuaries where children develop into perfect rational subjects; rather, schools are messy, vibrant, lively, worlds where children both constitute and come to know the diverse world and public(s) that surround them. Dressing Diversity: The School Uniform Policy A policy bulletin from Los Angeles states: ÒThe Los Angeles Unified School District believes that appropriate student dress contributes to a 4 Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990). 5 Nancy Fraser, ÒSocial Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation.Ó Tanner Lecture Series, Stanford University (April 30ÐMay 2, 1996), http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/f/Fraser98.pdf. 6 David L. Brunsma, ÒSchool Uniforms in Public Schools,Ó National Association of Elementary School Principals (January/February 2006), 50. 7 Young, Politics of Difference, 241. PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION Ð 2015/Volume 46 113 productive learning environment.Ó8 While a policy from Pitt County states: ÒThe implementation of school uniforms will help minimize disruptive behavior, promote respect for oneself and others, build school/community spirit, and, more significantly, help to maintain high academic standards.Ó9 Most school uniform policies echo these sentiments. They appear to originate from a genuine desire for students to succeed academically, and/or a need to improve behavior and safety. Yet, the history of asking students to appear one way or another is a story of mingled concerns about academic achievement, juvenile delinquency, gender appropriateness, race relations, and gang affiliation.10 Ines Dussel historically situates these concerns within a broad trend toward institutional organization and control of people who pivot around the Òaxis of difference.Ó11 According to Dussel, Òsuch policies were tied to the disciplining of ÔunrulyÕ, ÔsavageÕ, ÔuntamedÕ bodies, that is, the bodies of those who were not able to perform self‐regulation or self‐government: women, Black, Indian, poor classes, immigrants, toddlers or infants.Ó12 In YoungÕs language, the victims of cultural imperialism are frozen Òinto a being marked as other,Ó while the dominant group occupies a universal ÒunmarkedÓ position.13 The impetus to uniform is at once entangled in a project to mark or dress difference and to extend the ÒuniversalizedÓ position to the Òother.Ó14 The policy trend toward institutional control vis-ˆ-vis school uniform policies is enmeshed in the desire for definition and regulation of studentÕs personal bodies and is a means to regulate and define childrenÕs relationships with one another. School uniform policies are not merely concerned with what one wears, but are a part of how we organize schools and the students therein. These policies are an attempt to make schools safer and better, to regulate what happens, and who affiliates with whom. A District of Columbia uniform policy hints at these underlying tensions by taking measures to define what ÒuniformÓ means within the policy: ÒThe term Ôuniform,Õ for the purposes of a mandatory uniform policy, is defined as clothing of the same style and/or color and 8 Jim Morris, ÒStudent Dress Codes/Uniforms,Ó Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin, BUL-2549.1 (December 2009), 1. 9 Ibid. 10 Wendell Anderson, ÒSchool Dress Codes and Uniform Policies,Ó Policy Report (ERIC Clearinghouse on Education Management), no. 4 (2002), 4. Anderson briefly captures this history in the synopsis of his policy report. 11 Ines Dussel, ÒWhen Appearances Are Not Deceptive: A Comparative History of School Uniforms in Argentina and the United States (NineteenthÐTwentieth Centuries),Ó Paedagogica Historica 41, no. 1Ð2 (2005): 191. 12 Ibid. 13 Young, Politics of Difference, 123. 14 To this point, Dussel, notes that elite, private, ÒpreppyÓ school dress was extended down, as it were, to public mass schooling and has become the school uniform we are familiar with today, e.g. khaki pants and Oxford shirts. Deane Ð Dressing Diversity 114 standard look, as agreed upon by the school community.Ó15 Nonetheless, a definition of ÒuniformÓ does little to draw attention away from the fact that the policy is asking all children to appear the same. The concluding advice from a US Department of Education policy report for drafting a uniform policy reads: Òwhen they are justified by a schoolÕs circumstances, wisely conceived in collaboration with the community, and coupled with appropriate interventions, dress codes and school uniforms may positively influence school climate, student behavior, and academic success. However, it is critical to keep such polices in proper perspective and avoid overestimating or exaggerating their potential benefits.Ó16 This hesitant endorsement of school uniform policies manages to advise caution about drawing specific cause-and-effect relationships between school uniforms and academic gains, and in the same instance, it glosses over the historical and philosophical significance of asking students to uniformly dress their difference. Standardizing how students appear may give the school an air of control over the schooling environment, but in doing so, these policies tell students that when and where appearances differ, danger lurks. Addressing Diversity: Social Justice and the School Uniform Policy Claims for social justice, more often than not, stem from one of two directions; summed up by references to distribution or recognition, social injustices are either rectified by redistributing wealth/social goods, or by recognizing and valuing difference. Redistributive claims generally follow the logic of John RawlsÕ theory of justice and utilize some version of an Òoriginal position.Ó The policy logic, or reasoning behind, school uniform policies broadly appeals to logic derived from a distributional ethic, which finds its ideal articulation of the student in the rational, reasoning, and regulated self. The problem with this ideal articulation and the distributional ethic is best illustrated by evaluating the ways in which RawlsÕ theory of social justice informs the rationale of school uniform policies. RawlsÕs theory of justice and the school uniform policy share a similar objective: thinly constructed reasoning parties. In Justice as Fairness Rawls develops the Òoriginal positionÓ whereby parties can agree to the terms of society and justice without conceding Òdifferences in life prospects.Ó17 That is to say, difference or diversity is an essential consideration in RawlsÕ project. In an effort to deal with the mandates of diversity, the fact of pluralism, Rawls adopts and builds upon the Kantian deontological self to describe the sort of people contracting in the original position. Accordingly, the original position 15 ÒDistrict of Columbia Public Schools: Notice of Final Rule Making,Ó (District of Columbia Register, vol. 56, no. 33, Chapter B24, Section B2408, August 2009), 3. 16 Anderson, ÒSchool Dress Codes,Ó 4, my emphasis. 17 Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 6.3Ð6.4, 12.2. PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION Ð 2015/Volume 46 115 imbues these intrinsically worthy subjects with neutrality and structural impartiality, both of which ensure that they are representative of any person from society. Placed behind the Òveil of ignorance,Ó the parties are situated symmetrically and on this undifferentiated plane they do not claim a social class, racial or sexual orientation, a comprehensive conception of the good, or any other distinguishing factor.18 Rawls states, Òthe parties are artificial persons, merely inhabitants of our device of representation: they are characters who have a part in the play of our thought experiment.Ó 19 In consequence the representatives in the original position are, admittedly, non-real characters with limited knowledge, or Òcomplicated amnesia.Ó20 Moreover, it is the Òcomplicated amnesia,Ó or the Òveil of ignoranceÓ that gives the parties the ability to be impartial and, more importantly, rational. It is true that Rawls works to construct a thin consensus in the public about societyÕs basic structures because he wants to leave open the ability to construct individually defined thick lives; however, the parties of the original position are abstracted to such an extent that a monological position ensues. Michael Sandel summarizes the problem aptly: ÒThe notion that not persons but only a single subject is to be found behind the veil of ignorance would explain why no bargaining or discussion can take place there.Ó21 The Òveil of ignoranceÓ removes the partiesÕ ÒthicknessÓ so that they can reason together. The problem is that a truly pluralistic or diverse society will not be the product when a single subject conceives the definitions of justice. WhatÕs more, the agreement of like-minded parties does not necessitate actual participationÑit merely requires appearance. Uniform policies are theoretically similar. They function as a Òveil of ignoranceÓ for children who are too poor, too brown, or too different from one another to be members of the same school. Uniform policies imply that children in uniform are freed from any context that might impose a restraint on reason. Under a Òveil of ignoranceÓ children are not asked to think about why their classmate is poor, or brown; they are required to show up. RawlsÕ theory of justice constructs thin, uniform, rational people (students) who can operate in the political sphere (school) as a way to achieve some kind of overlapping consensus (standard academic achievement). I believe it is clear that these thinly constituted people are both objectionable and impractical; nonetheless, Young helps draw out the unwelcome side affects of favoring the impartial subject and proposes an alternative solution. Young approaches justice from within the messy, situated context of the world. Her argument for a politics of difference highlights the fact that theories of distributive justice have monopolized the conversation about what justice entails in the era of modern political philosophy, such that Òdisplacing 18 Ibid., 23.3, 25.3. 19 Ibid., 23.4. 20 Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 105. 21 Ibid., 132. Deane Ð Dressing Diversity 116 the distributive paradigmÓ is part of accepting her theory of justice as recognition of difference.22 For Young the distributive paradigms pose a large-scale problem in the sense that the Òideal of impartiality or logic of identityÓ infiltrates every aspect of civic life. The logic of identity is problematic because of the intrinsic desire for unity. As such, ÒThe logic of identity seeks to reduce the plurality of particular subjects, their bodily, perspectival experience, to a unity, by measuring them against the unvarying standard of universal reason.Ó23 The reverence deferred to universal reason is part of the project of moral ethics, which defines impartiality as necessary for the capacity to reason. The Kantian deontological ideal is to find a point of view that everyone can agree to, or see from, irrespective of their particular difference. School uniform polices strive for the same ideal. The hope is that if kids are all wearing the same clothing, no one will notice anotherÕs socioeconomic status, or speak from their particular position. The ideal of impartiality creates a dichotomy between the Òuniversal and the particular, public and private, and reason and passionÓ to the extent that the civic public, the terrain of schooling, becomes the place of universal reason.24 Much like the problem identified by SandelÕs reading of RawlsÕ original position, universal reason requires agreement of abstracted parties, not dialogue with those who are differently situated. Furthermore, if the terrain of schooling is a place of universal reason it is no wonder that the Òeither-or thinkingÓ of dichotomies reigns. Children are either uniformed or partial, uniformed or needy, uniformed or irrational. Young pointedly explains that the Òideal of impartialityÓ is flat out impossible, because it requires expelling the aspects of difference that do not fit. In fact, Òno one can adopt a view that is completely impersonal and dispassionate.Ó25 Additionally, my sense of imbeddedness defines my Òsocial locationÓ to the degree that I cannot enter someone elseÕs location. Nevertheless, if it is possible to strip myself of my location, what then is the purpose of having a location?26 Requiring the removal of particularity for uniformity, whether for moral cohesion or universal reason, is an affected wish. People do not have to be the same to get along; rather, it is possible for people to be both partial and have reasonable associations with each other. Young argues, ÒIf one assumes instead that moral reason is dialogic, the product of discussion among differently situated subjects all of whom desire recognition and acknowledgement from the others, then there is no need for a universal point of view to pull people out of egoism.Ó27 Thus, the ideal of impartiality is not a necessity, and should not be a desire since it is a fanciful fiction. Instead, 22 Young, Politics of Difference, 15. 23 Ibid., 99. 24 Ibid., 97. 25 Ibid., 103. 26 Ibid., 105. 27 Ibid.,106. PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION Ð 2015/Volume 46 117 if we grant that differently situated people can and should have a voice to discuss what matters to them, we will see their differences shed new light on relevant issues and aspects of justice. School uniform policies, like the Òideal of impartiality,Ó create unjust expectations of neutrality on behalf of students, and in removing the space for actual conversation, depoliticize difference. In contrast, the recognition of difference presumes that Òblindness to difference disadvantages groups whose experience, culture, and socialized capacities differ from those of privileged groupsÓ28 and that Òassimilation always implies coming to the game late.Ó29 As reflected in school uniform policies, the ideal of impartiality, in its blindness to difference, disadvantages students who are asked to assimilate by removing the space for conversation about difference. Moreover, no child should feel like they are coming to the game late, especially in a learning environment. Recognition of difference should be an essential function of schooling to the extent that any language of assimilation finds no purchase. Writ large, YoungÕs solution may appear obvious at this point, but it is worth stating explicitly: ÒA democratic public should provide mechanisms for the effective recognition and representation of the distinct voices and perspectives of those of its constituent groups that are oppressed or disadvantaged.Ó30 The solution writ small in, say, a school system, should mimic the same sentiments. Requiring student to wear uniforms is not the problem: the problem is the reason for requiring uniforms. A unique answer to YoungÕs demand to displace the distributive is Nancy FraserÕs mixing of the distributive paradigm with recognition. Fraser starts by noting that the distributive paradigm has a certain theoretical heftÑat some point various groups or individuals have appealed to their common humanity, the original position, or impartial reason out of necessity, perceived or actual. With the weightiness of the distributive paradigm in mind, Fraser erects a Òbivalent axisÓ of social justice she calls a Òtwo prongedÓ approach. The bivalent axis of social justice is best thought of as a spectrum within which a pendulum can swing from distinctly distributional problems to those characterized as distinctly recognition-based, but where neither is ever the singular answer.31 The pendulum is always in motion. According to Fraser, ÒA bivalent conception treats distribution and recognition as distinct perspectives on, and dimensions of, justice, while at the same time encompassing both of them within a broader overarching framework.Ó This does not mean that either claim, distribution or recognition, is subsumed into the other.32 Instead, Fraser locates their shared normative core as a Òparity of participation.Ó33 As she explains, ÒAccording to this norm, justice requires social arrangements that 28 Ibid., 164. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., 184. 31 Fraser, ÒAge of Identity Politics,Ó 22. 32 Ibid., 24. 33 Ibid., 30. Deane Ð Dressing Diversity 118 permit all (adult) members of society to interact with one another as peers.Ó34 In other words, justice both of the distributional and recognition varieties, stems from the supposition that each member of society has equal dignity and ought to have the means to interact with one another in the public sphere. FraserÕs Òparity of participation,Ó relies on an understanding of the imbricated nature of culture and the economy. To say that justice spans a continuum from distribution to recognition is also to say that the economy and culture are institutions that make up our shared social world.35 The conditions for this parity of participation require a form of legal equality, and preclude Òforms and levels of material inequality, [and] cultural patterns that systematically depreciate some categories of people.Ó36 People within this framework are thickly defined and contextually situated. They have both objective being that requires some kind of material position, and an intersubjective status that mandates recognition. The objective condition is, thus, most often rectified by redistribution, whereas the intersubjective condition is nullified by recognition. Fraser takes a decidedly rooted stance in a turn toward the pragmatic and recommends that answers to the injustice fit the practical situation. The pragmatic approach is the tool by which we ought to deploy the bivalent pendulum, which is always seeking the normative ideal, parity of participation. In every case the remedy of an injustice should be tailored to the harm, and in all cases the goal is to create, maintain, and reimagine a space for equal participation of each person or group of people. FraserÕs pragmatic answer, and its normative assumption, is not radically divergent from YoungÕs grounding in critical social theory whereby she defines a Òpolitics of difference.Ó YoungÕs politics of difference, after all, takes that differently situated people can have a discussion that leads to moral reason and just social structures.37 The distinction between FraserÕs parity of participation and YoungÕs politics of difference rests on how equality is imagined to function. For Fraser the norm Òparity of participationÓ holds that each personÕs voice has equal weight or worth within political discourse. Conversely, Young notes that the groups who are Òoppressed and disadvantagedÓ are those for whom mechanisms of recognition must be appropriated.38 The distinction lies in the fact that FraserÕs Òparity of participationÓ necessarily strives toward structural equality, as opposed to merely Òmitigating the influence of current biases,Ó as Young puts it.39 Thus, FraserÕs bivalent conception is an excellent tool to help us think about the 34 Ibid. 35 As Fraser aptly characterizes the argument, the answer does not lie in statements like: ÒitÕs the culture stupid,Ó nor its counterpart ÒitÕs the economy stupid,Ó 39Ð41. 36 Ibid., 31. 37 Young, Politics of Difference, 106. 38 Ibid., 192Ð225. 39 Ibid., 198. PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION Ð 2015/Volume 46 119 pointed experience of injustice, but YoungÕs normative politics of difference is a fuller norm to reach toward. Conclusion: Redressing Diversity, City Life as School Life Employing FraserÕs bivalent continuum, we can say that school uniform policies are attempts to organize children who may be experiencing both distributional and recognition related injustices, but because the policies appeal to a logic of identity and distributional ethic, school uniform policies operate at the expense of a politics of difference. Following Fraser, a pragmatic remedy for the injustice of uniforming children in school requires that we rearticulate the value of Òbringing children together in a common space.Ó40 An assumption of this paper is that the value of schooling is manifest in more than narrowly defined achievement or the acceptance of socialized roles. Rather, because education is always answering a question about what it means to be human,41 the value of bringing children together in a common space is evidenced when they learn how to recognize and speak from places of personal difference. The Òdynamic that makes public schools democraticÓ is the activity of engaging children and their humanity. Higgins and Knight Abowitz ask, ÒWhat might it mean to think of the classroom not as a room within an institution that is already public, but as a space in which teachers and learners make public?Ó42 It means that we must see children and their teachers, and the school at large, as a public making project. Democratic schooling demands that we see children as full of vigorous and playful humanity. It requires that we engage with children as partial, situated members of the public. Young imagines an alternative form of social relationsÑpublicÑwhere a politics of difference prevails as analogous to city life.43 YoungÕs imaginative view of city life highlights democratic modes of being and is one way to think about what it might mean to envision the school as forever ÒbecomingÓ public. In YoungÕs parlance, ÒBy Ôcity lifeÕ I mean a form of social relations which I define as the being together of strangers. In the city persons and groups interact with spaces and institutions they all experience themselves as belonging to, but without those interactions dissolving into unity or commonness.Ó44 Each day an encounter with the city on the train, in the park, at a restaurant, or in a building requires that we find ways to live together. The persistent encounter with difference forces city dwellers to recognize that 40 Chris Higgins and Kathleen Knight Abowitz, ÒWhat Makes a Public School Public? A Framework for Evaluating the Civic Substance of Schooling,Ó Educational Theory 61, no. 4 (2011), 369. 41 Gert J. J. Biesta, Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future (Boulder: Paradigm, 2006), 2. 42 Higgins and Knight Abowitz, ÒPublic School,Ó 379. 43 Young, Politics of Difference, 226Ð27. 44 Ibid., 237. Deane Ð Dressing Diversity 120 people are just differently situated, or socially located beings, with whom they can have a partial dialogue. Recognition of our relationally defined being is the foundation for meaningful conversation about justice and the bivalent structures, cultural and economic, which shape our shared world. Democracy is premised on the human ability to engage in dialogue, to plan consequences, and to generate publics. Moreover, democracy is a human endeavor that requires people to think about each other from the inside out, a dynamic Young sees in expressions of city life.45 Extending Young and Fraser into the school, which is a vital and political part of city life, requires that we imbue children with the capacity to converse with and about difference. It is unjust and na•ve to believe a studentÕs capacity for confronting difference is any less than a typical member of a city. City living implies a form of social relations that requires Òa being together of strangers,Ó but it does so no more than school living ought to, if schools do have Òthe dynamic that makes them democratic.Ó46 Moreover, the school is an institution each child can belong to; it is a place where they ought to be given the opportunity to come together as a public of strangers to workout the problems of associated living. By appealing to a Òveil of ignoranceÓ or logic of impartiality school uniform policies unjustly teach children to rid themselves of emotion, race, and gender so that they can reason.47 All this logic does is perpetuate the idea that you cannot reason while emotional, that race and reason cannot be articulated together, and that gender affects who is rational and when. In my evaluation, social justice requires that we facilitate Òa politics of differenceÓ and foster a Òbivalent approachÓ toward the axes of injustice to support children in their growth. The Òdynamic that makes school democraticÓ only works when children are trusted with difference, diversity, and strangenessÑat least to the extent that we trust members of a city with the same. 45 Martha C. Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). 46 Young, Politics of Difference, 237; see also Monroe, ÒWhen Elite Parents Dominate.Ó 47 For more on ritualization and gender and school uniforms see: Allison Happel, ÒRitualized Girl: School Uniforms and the Compulsory Performance of Gender,Ó Journal of Gender Studies 22, no. 1(2013): 92Ð95.