Which one? A comparative study of traditional and sports uniforms on academic achievement, cognitive performance, playtime, bullying, and discrimination in adolescents: The Cogni-Action Project

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare academic achievement, cognitive performance, playtime, bullying, and discrimination in adolescents according to traditional uniforms (TUs) and sports uniforms (SUs) worn at school, while simultaneously exploring the influence of the school vulnerability index. 11 17 , Cristi-Montero et al. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.917970 Introduction School uniforms have an important social context; in fact, in New Zealand, it is a reason why students choose their schools (1), but in general, uniforms have been adopted as strategies by principals and governments to improve educational test scores and student behavior (2, 3). Indeed, several studies have suggested that traditional uniforms remove social differences, increase security, reduce violence, improve school climate and discipline, promote social responsibility, and improve academic achievement (2–8). However, findings on this matter are highly sparse and heterogeneous and seem to be dependent on the population studied, age, race, educational context, and socioeconomic status (2, 3, 6, 9, 10), and the aforementioned features have not been proven yet (3, 6, 7, 9). Given that most evidence about this research issue comes from developed countries, ascertaining uniforms’ influence in a less advantageous social context (e.g., in a Latin-American country such as Chile) could give us more insight into this public matter. In Chile, most schools require wearing a traditional uniform (TU) (i.e., shirt and school necktie in boys and skirt and blouse in girls), and gradually, some schools have begun to encourage wearing a sports uniform (SU) (i.e., polo shirts or t- shirts and sport or short trousers). A plausible reason is that, due to COVID-19, many schools have performed their classes virtually, and TUs have not been mandatory; thus, many schools and families have begun to question its use (i.e., economic concern). Uniforms are expensive, and most schools require that families buy several uniforms (i.e., for winter, summer, sports, and formal occasions), increasing households’ economic burden considerably (8, 11, 12). Furthermore, in Chile, not wearing a TU has been used as a reason for school expulsion, contravening current national regulations (13). In a highly unequal and hierarchical community such as Latin-American countries (14), promoting freedom of expression and reducing social gaps such as gender is a priority (15). However, wearing TU could limit self-expression (12) and could reduce engaging in physical activity, especially in girls (16), which further widens the gender gap at an early stage (17, 18), increasing health inequalities (19) and affecting cognitive and educational goals (20). In this sense, family socioeconomic status is strongly related to adolescents’ academic and cognitive performance; nonetheless, Latin-American schools seem to be stronger predictors of these indicators because they share certain features (i.e., economic, social, and cultural status) eliciting a more considerable influence than families (21). Indeed, a study on Chilean adolescents showed that a potent socioeconomic indicator at the school level (i.e., the school vulnerability Frontiers in Public Health 02 frontiersin.org Methods: A total of 988 Chilean adolescents (52.6% boys) aged 10–14 years participated in this cross-sectional study. Academic achievement was evaluated by the average grade in maths, language, and science grades, while cognitive performance was assessed through eight cognitive tasks. TUs affecting physical activity, playtime, bullying, and discrimination were queried. Mixed model analyses were performed. Results: No differences were observed in academic achievement (TU: 5.4 ± 0.1 vs. SU: 5.5 ± 0.2, p = 0.785) or in cognitive performance (TU: 99.6 ± 0.8 vs. SU: 98.9 ± 1.8, p = 0.754) according to the school uniform type. Moreover, 64.1% of participants declared that wearing TU affects their physical activity (traditional uniforms: +8min and sports uniforms: +20min), and those who believed so spent more time playing than those who answered negatively (14.5 min, p = 0.012). Finally, adolescents wearing SU displayed a lower feeling of bullying and discrimination; this finding depended mainly on the school’s vulnerability. Conclusion: It is concluded that wearing TU does not show an educational advantage at an academic and cognitive level that justifies its obligation. In addition, it could be suggested that schools consider adolescents’ opinions in adopting a more comfortable uniform, such as the SU. This feasible and low-cost measure would help to increase adolescents’ physical activity during the school day, and, contrary to belief, it would not be related to increased feelings of bullying and discrimination.