What Can We Do To Slow Climate Change?

        It is becoming increasingly clear that addressing climate change could be one of the most urgent scientific, political, economic, and ethical issues that humanity faces. However, changes in the earth's climate are neither new nor unusual. Over the past 4.5 billion years the planet's climate has been altered by volcanic emissions, changes in solar input, continents moving slowly atop shifting tectonic plates, impacts by large meteors, and other factors (Blumer). Although the average temperature of the atmosphere has remained fairly stable for the past 1000 years, it began rising dramatically during the last century when people began clearing more forests and burning more fossil fuels. In 1880, the average surface temperature was 14.0 degrees Celsius, whereas in 2006, the average surface temperature reached nearly 15.0 degrees Celsius (Harris). To slow he rate of global warming and climate change, we need to take action on the climate change issue.
        Of course, there are characteristics of climate change that make it difficult to tackle. For instance, dealing with this threat will require unprecedented and prolonged international cooperation. In addition, the harmful and beneficial impacts of climate change are not spread evenly; hence, there will be winners and losers in the event of moderate climate change. Higher latitude nations such as Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Greenland, and New Zealand could have higher crop yields, fewer deaths in winter, lower heating bills, and more tourism (Blumer). However, there is a catch: We will not know who will benefit and who will suffer until it is too late to avoid harmful effects. At some temperature threshold, essentially everyone will be harmed directly or indirectly. Also, and perhaps most importantly, many proposed actions that might reduce the threat of climate change, such as phasing out fossil fuels, are controversial because "they would disrupt economies and lifestyles" (Fabe). Nevertheless, according to a 2008 study by the OECD, waiting too long to slow climate change would also disrupt economies and lifestyles, probably to an even greater extent. 
         The good news is that there are a number of ways to slow the rate and degree of global warming and the resulting climate change caused by human activities. For example, humans can cut fossil fuel use, shift from coal to natural gas, improve energy efficiency, reduce poverty, slow population growth, reduce deforestation, and endless others. These solutions come down to three major prevention strategies: improve energy efficiency to reduce fossil fuel use; shift from nonrenewable carbon-based fossil fuels to a mix of carbon-free renewable energy resources; and stop cutting down tropical forests (Fabe). Of course, the stopping of fossil fuel production is nearly impossible in society today; therefore, another strategy is to keep burning fossil fuels but to capture and store as much carbon dioxide as possible in soil, vegetation, underground, and in the deep ocean and to hope that it will never leak out. United states scientists Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala at Princeton University have outlined a plan for holding 2057 carbon dioxide levels to those in 2007 in order to help us avoid harmful effects. They have identified strategies to cut carbon dioxide emissions, called "climate stabilization wedges"(Blumer). They estimate that getting carbon dioxide emissions to 2007 levels by 2057, and holding them there would require implementing any 8 of the 15 wedges during the next 5 decades. A 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Association showed how implementing just two of the strategies alone could lead to a 60-80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
           Obviously, humans need to take a stand and help prevent climate change around the globe. According to environmental expert Lester R. Brown, in his 2008 book Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, human action is necessary in order to keep climate change from spiraling out of control and  threatening human civilization as we know it (Harris). By slowing climate change, involving energy efficiency, and sharply reducing deforestation, we can reduce the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to slow climate change. Based on the scientific consensus, we need to implement known solutions to the problems of climate change and ozone depletion, and we must do this globally and on an emergency basis. Each of us has an important role to play in protecting the atmosphere - an irreplaceable resource that sustains all life on earth.

Works Cited
Blumer, Tom. "US News Item on How Working Less Might Slow 'Climate Change' Ignores Underlying Radical 'De-Growth' Agenda." NewsBusters. MRC, 5 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/05/us-news-item-how-working-less-might-slow-down-climate-change-ignores-rad>.

Fabe, Bong D. "Want to Slow Climate Change? Reduce Working Hours, Says Think Tank." InterAksyon.com. Inter Aksyon, 6 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://www.interaksyon.com/article/54450/want-to-slow-climate-change-reduce-working-hours-says-think-tank>.

Harris, Leon. "Will Reduced Work Hours Really Slow Climate Change?" Weblog post.Eco Office Goals. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://eco-officegals.com/will-reduced-work-hours-really-slow-climate-change/>

Is Food Irradiation Safe?

                In the United States, there are at least 10 million cases of food poisoning reported annually due to deadly bacteria such as Salmonella. About 9000 of those cases are fatal. Medical treatment and loss of worker production cost the nation billions of dollars each year. During the past several decades, the food processing industry and the federal food and drug administration have supported the use of food irradiation to reduce the danger of food poisoning. Food is irradiated to destroy harmful bacteria or insects in or on the food and to stop the natural process of ripening. During irradiation, gamma rays passing through the food break chemical bonds among atoms and destroy the genetic material in microbes or insects, preventing them from reproducing. Gamma rays also break the bonds of some food molecules. However, irradiation is not radioactive, just as you are not radioactive after undergoing dental X rays! Still, the debate rages about the safety of irradiated food.

                Of course, food irradiation is not necessary to kill harmful organisms in food. Proper and thorough cooking kills harmful organisms in or on food including both Salmonella and Trichinella, which can infect pork and cause trichinosis in humans. Opponents further point out that irradiation may actually result in accidental food poisoning. In some cases, irradiation may kill organisms that signal spoiled food, without killing other truly dangerous organisms. Therefore, a food may look and smell fresh because the odor-causing organisms have been killed by irradiation, however, disease-causing organisms may still infect the food. 

                 Evidence from Iowa State University Food Safety Research Project has shown that irradiation lessens the nutritional value of food by causing a loss of vitamins (Food). Some people think that this loss of nutrients in irradiated food may have serious consequences. Scientists from the project noted that food exposed to gamma rays loses vitamin A, C, and E, and certain B vitamins. Another study found that animals fed irradiated food lost weight, wand that pregnant animals often miscarried - probably because of the food's reduced vitamin E content (Food). 

               Although food irradiation can have negative effects, those in favor of food radiation point out the great value and efficiency of irradiation in wiping out harmful insects and microorganisms that infect food. Irradiated, sterilized food is particularly beneficial for people whose immune system is impaired. In answer to the charge that irradiation destroys nutrients, the proponents reveal that cooking food also destroys some nutrients. Also, the nutrient loss caused by iradiation is generally slight. Most scientists from the Food and Drug Administration agree that food irradiated with 10,000 rads or less of gamma rays shows little or no nutrient loss, even of easily destroyed vitamin C (The Facts). At greater than 10,000 rads, irradiated food exhibits nutrient loss that is, according to the FDA, generally no more than the loss that occurs in canned or frozen foods.

                 FDA scientists do admit that some of the radiolytic products (RP's or free radicals) that are of concern to opponents are in fact known cancer-causing agents (Brennand). However, the RP's occur in very minute amounts in irradiated food. In a 1980 study from the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California-Davis, there were no more than 30 parts per million of RP's found in the irradiated food tested (Food). Most of these RP's turned out to be identical to naturally occurring food substances, and so were considered safe. 

                 In the end, the benefits of food irradiation far out way the negative effects. The Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation of meat and poultry and allows its use for a variety of other foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, and spices. The agency determined that the process is safe and effective in decreasing or eliminating harmful bacteria. Irradiation also reduces spoilage bacteria, insects and parasites, and in certain fruits and vegetables it inhibits sprouting and delays ripening. The controversy over food irradiation may, perhaps, best be summed up by an irradiation proponent, Charlotte p. Brennand, PhD and Extension Food Safety Specialist who said "Food irradiation is so good for food because it is so dangerous for everything that lives."

Works Cited

            Brennand, Charlotte P. "Food Irradiation." Food Irradiation. Radiation Information Networks, Mar. 1995. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm>.

            "Food Irradiation." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 July 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/food_irrad.html>.

            "The Facts about Food Irradiation." The Facts about Food Irradiation. UW Food Irradiation Education Group, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu/Facts.html>.

Should P.E. Class Be Mandatory?

        Throughout schools nation-wide, physical education is at the core of a comprehensive approach to promoting physical activity. Physical education helps students develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and confidence needed to be physically active for life, while providing an opportunity for students to be active during the school day. Leading professionals in the field of physical education have developed a new kind of physical education that is fundamentally different from the stereotypical “roll out the balls and play” classes of decades past that featured little meaningful instruction and lots of humiliation for students who were not athletically coordinated. Professional associations, academic experts, and many teachers across the country are promoting and implementing quality physical education programs that emphasize participation in lifelong physical activity among all students.
          Of course, some students are physically unable to participate in physical education. I agree that if a student has a medical condition and a note from their doctor that it is fine for them not to participate. However, all students capable of participating should do so. Not only will students stay active for the majority of the class time, but physical activity teaches self-management skills, such as goal-setting and self-monitoring. Perhaps most importantly, gym class focuses, at the high school level, on helping adolescents make the transition to a physically active adult lifestyle. Also, many students do not wish to participate in physical education classes because they worry about developing injuries. They believe children participating in physical activity are at a higher risk of injury than those who are in academic classes. By not being physically active, a student is at greater risk for sustaining an injury. However, injuries can certainly be prevented, and people are more likely to develop unhealthy habits by not exercising than by exercising. It is important to stretch and warm up before starting any work out. Students learn these safety techniques from their participation in physical education class.  Particularly in the spine, shoulder, and hip areas, stretching helps develop flexibility.
         All children, from prekindergarten through grade twelve, should participate in quality physical education classes every school day. It is a known fact that physical activity improves overall health.  Not only does it improve circulation, increase blood flow to the brain, and raise endorphin levels, which all help to reduce stress, improve mood and attitude, and calm children, physically active students may also achieve more academically.  Physically fit students are less likely to miss school, partake in risky behaviors, get pregnant, or attempt suicide, which are all associated with better outcomes in school. 
          The importance of making physical education fun was illustrated by a national survey of students in grades 4–12, which found that enjoyment of physical education class was one of the most powerful factors associated with participation in physical activity outside of school. To provide opportunities for health-enhancing physical activity, physical education should be offered every day to all students from prekindergarten through grade 12. Unfortunately, most US students do not participate in daily exercise, and the proportion of students with daily physical education has been declining over the years. In 1994, only 17 percent of junior high schools and 2 percent of high schools required physical education five days per week each year. Additionally, the majority of high school students take physical education for only a single year.
         In conclusion, all schools should make it mandatory for students to have physical education classes every year. Society becomes more unhealthy each year due to students' lack of exercise. Therefore, these students need to be educated in physical fitness. To achieve this, students can participate in physical education classes, learning how to warm up, stretch, and exercise. Through exercising daily, the rate of obesity will decrease, and people will become healthier individuals, thus resulting in happier human beings. If we continue with the lack of physical education in schools, we will continue to contribute to the poor health of students.




Works Cited

Garcia, Rob. "Should P.E. Be Mandatory?" Chicago Tribune. N.p., 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-15/news/0901160054_1_gym-class-education-segment-physical-education>.

Toporak, Bryan. "Should Schools Make Physical Education Mandatory?" Edweek. Education Week, 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/schooled_in_sports/2011/01/should_schools_make_physical_education_mandatory.html>.

Woo, Yen Yen. "Should Physical Education Be Mandatory in Schools? By Shayna, Michael & Nichele." NY Teachers. N.p., 18 Oct. 2007. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://nyteachers.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/should-physical-education-be-mandatory-in-schools-by-shayna-michael-nichele/>.

Pets Should Be "Fixed" (4)

          Every pet owner knows that there are excessive responsibilities that go along with having a dog or cat. They must feed and exercise the pet, to keep it physically healthy; they must play with it, and keep it emotionally healthy as well. They have to keep it safe from cars, people, or other animals, and they ought to protect other people, property, or pets from their own animal. There is another responsibility that not all pet owners think about, however: neutering or spaying, or “fixing.” What does “fixing” a pet mean? Simply put, it means taking the pet to the vet for a quick, cheap surgery that will prevent the pet from ever becoming a mother or father. This surgery solves problems that pet owners know about, and some that they might not have considered before. In fact, I believe that all pet owners should be required to have their pets fixed.
           Everybody loves an adorable new kitten or puppy. But those cuties soon grow larger, and right now, there simply are not enough homes for them all. Some unwanted animals go to shelters, or “dog pounds.” These shelters are like prisons for animals, but with one important difference: many of the prisoners will never get out. Shelters have limited funds and limited space, and they cannot keep all the animals they collect. If a cat or dog is not adopted within a certain time period, that animal is killed. On the other hand, not all unwanted animals go to a shelter. What happens to a homeless animal left out on the street? Remember, our pets are exactly that - pets. They are not wild animals. They cannot find fresh water or hunt their own food, especially in a city. They cannot understand traffic laws, so they often get struck by cars. They are susceptible to common illnesses - illnesses that they can then spread to other animals, including pets. They are not tame, so they may attack other animals or people. In either case, the life of most unwanted animals is not long, but it is full of misery and pain, and it is also a life that is dangerous to pets or people who they meet. By not “fixing” their own animal, they will almost certainly be adding to this problem.
            Of course, some people will not agree with me. “I don’t want to give my animal an unnecessary surgery,” they will say. “Surgery is risky, too, and it’s certainly expensive.” This idea shows ignorance. Spaying or neutering should be done as soon someone gets their pet - when he or she is young and healthy - and it is almost 100% safe. The animal is in much more danger if not fixed, for the urge to run away from home will put the pet in extremely dangerous situations. Likewise, almost all cities have a fund to help pay for the surgery. Just ask at your vet or the local S.P.C.A. (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The cost can be as low as ten dollars.
          No matter how someone looks at the situation, there truly is really no valid reason not to spay or neuter a pet. Whether considering the potential suffering of unborn animals, the health and comfort of your own pet, or your own convenience as a pet owner, you must agree that the facts all show that spaying or neutering is the way to go. It is not only the convenient choice, but also the morally right choice, and one that all pet owners should make.



Works Cited
Hoffman, Lyz. "Goleta Encourages Fixing Pets." Independent. N.p., 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Keith, Kristie. "The Unspoken Truth about Spaying and Neutering Our Pets." SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle, 10 Apr. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.sfgate.com/pets/yourwholepet/article/The-unspoken-truth-about-spaying-and-neutering-2464233.php>.

"The Truth about Fixing Your Pet." Fixing Your Dog. Canine Obedience Unlimited, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.canineobedienceunlimited.com/dog-training-articles/the-truth-about-fixing-your-pet/>.

Later High School Start Times (3)

          What time should the school day begin? School start times vary significantly, both within individual communities and across the nation, with many schools beginning earlier than 7:30 a.m. and others after 9:00 a.m. Regions often stagger the start times of different schools in order to reduce transportation costs by using fewer buses. Nevertheless, if beginning the school day early in the morning has a negative impact on academic performance, staggering start times may not be worth the cost savings. 
          I acknowledge that later school start times have some consequences. For instance, because most school districts have a delicately balanced bus transportation system designed to run as inexpensively and efficiently as possible, any change in the school schedule can have a severe impact.  In addition, high school athletics are very important to many students who have obvious concerns about the impact of a change in start times on their ability to participate. Any delay in the start of school will most likely result in a later release time, which may reduce time available for practice and meets. However, there are easy solutions to these two issues. One solution that has worked to solve the transportation problem is flipping start times, most commonly elementary with high school. This solution requires no extra buses or drivers, just a change in the order of pickups. This schedule also seems to be more appropriate to elementary school students’ sleep schedules, because young children tend to wake up earlier in the morning.  As for extracurricular activities, most districts that have changed their start time have experienced few problems with regard to athletics. Practice times are rescheduled, and in some cases lights are installed so practice can run slightly later. Meet times are changed so that students do not have to leave class early. Many districts have even seen increased participation in sports and improved performance by their teams. Research has shown that sleep deprivation has a severe negative impact on endurance and coordination, so it makes sense that better rested student athletes would perform better.
             I strongly believe that Wake County school times should extend the start time of high schools to a later time. The consequences of sleep deprivation during the teenage years are particularly serious. Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress and retain information. Young people who do not get enough sleep night after night carry a significant risk for fall asleep automobile crashes; emotional and behavioral problems such as irritability, depression, poor impulse control and violence; health complaints; tobacco and alcohol use; impaired cognitive function and decision-making; and lower overall performance in everything from academics to athletics. One statistic showed that, in Fayetteville County, Kentucky, teen driver crash rates reduced by 16.5% in two years after school start time was delayed by one hour while the rest of the state saw an increase in teen crash rates. In addition, The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota participated in a study of the impact of changing school start times on academic performance, behavior, and safety in urban and suburban schools. Results from three years of data from both Edina and Minneapolis showed improved attendance, increase in continuous enrollment, less tardiness, and students making fewer trips to the school nurse.  
             Adolescent sleep deprivation is largely driven by a conflict between teens’ internal biological clocks and the schedules and demands of society. Therefore, it makes sense to look at school start times, which set the rhythm of the day for students, parents, teachers and members of the community at large. Although there are a few negative side effects of later start times, on the whole, the benefits outweigh the costs of making this change. By simply adjusting school start times, far fewer students will be sleepless in America.



Works Cited

Cline, John. "Do Later School Start Times Really Help High School Students?"Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sleepless-in-america/201102/do-later-school-start-times-really-help-high-school-students>.

St. George, Donna. "Education." Washington Post. N.p., 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-11/local/35767223_1_school-day-school-leaders-school-buses>.

Trudeau, Michelle. "High Schools Starting Later to Help Sleepy Teens." NPR. NPR, 18 Jan. 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6896471>.

Animal Testing (2)

        We humans are not like animals; we are animals.  Psychologists study animals to learn about people, by doing experiments that are permissible only with animals. Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. Animal experiments have therefore led to treatments for human diseases, like insulin for diabetes, transplants to replace defective organs, and vaccines to prevent polio and rabies.  Pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.

         Certainly, many animals die each year due to scientific studies. Each year in the United States, an estimated thirty million animals are hurt and killed in the name of science by private institutions, household products and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. However, researchers remind us that the world's thirty million mammals used each year in research are but a fraction of 1 percent of the billions of animals killed annually for food. While researchers each year conduct experiments on some 200,000 dogs and cats cared for under humane regulations, humane animal shelters are forced to kill 50 times that many. How many of us would have attacked Pasteur's experiments with rabies, which caused some dogs to suffer but led to a vaccine that spared millions of people and dogs from agonizing death? And would we really wish to have deprived ourselves of the animal research that led to effective methods of training children with mental disorders; of relieving fears and depression; and of controlling alcoholism and disease? Of course, the answer is no.

         Animal research is ethical. Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Defenders of research on animals argue that anyone who has eaten a hamburger, tolerated hunting and fishing, or worn leather shoes agreed that, yes, it is permissible to sacrifice animals for the sake of human well-being. If humans give human life first priority, the second issue is the priority they give to the well-being of animals in research. Most researchers today feel morally obligated to enhance the well-being of captive animals and protect them from needless suffering. In one survey of animal researchers, 98 percent or more supported government regulations protecting primates, cats, and dogs, and 74 percent supported regulations providing for the humane care of rats and mice.  Additionally, many funding agencies and professional associations have rules for the humane use of animals. For instance, British Psychological Society guidelines call for housing animals under reasonably natural living conditions, with companions for social animals. Humane care also leads to more effective science, because stress and pain distort the animals' behavior during tests.

           Today's scientists are not motivated by cruelty, but by a powerful desire to push the frontiers of medical research and develop therapies for debilitating diseases. Professional ethical standards provide guidelines concerning the treatment of research participants, and university ethics committees safeguard participants' well-being. It is obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.

          

Works Cited

Christina, Cook. "Stand Up for Science." : Facts about Animal Research. Pro Test, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://www.pro-test.org.uk/2006/03/facts-about-animal-research.html>.

Claire, Madelyn. "Against Animal Testing." Teen Ink. N.p., 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://teenink.com/hot_topics/environment/article/440790/Against-Animal-Testing/>.

Fox, Fiona. "Animal Research Is Brave, Not Cruel, Science." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/28/animal-research-brave-not-cruel-science>.

Say No To School Uniforms (1)

          For many years, schools, parents, and students have conflicted over the controversy of managing school clothing.  In 2007, cases including an anti-Bush shirt in Vermont, an anti-gay shirt in San Diego, and Tigger socks in Napa, California, traveled through the courts, compelling many to question whether this debate will ever be resolved.  Meanwhile, researchers are split over how much of an impact dress codes have on student knowledge.  A 2004 book states that uniforms do not improve school safety or academic conduct.  A 2005 study, however, indicates that in some Ohio high schools, uniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates, although no improvements were observed in academic performance.
          I believe that uniforms should not be required for students; not in the United States, nor anywhere else in the world.  According to studies, uniforms are difficult to enforce in public schools, are a financial burden for low-income parents, make students a target for bullies in other schools, and are simply a cover-up on the dilemma of school violence.  In addition to these annoyances, uniforms violate a human's most important right : the right to freedom and expression.  Currently, fashion plays an enormous role in the lives of all citizens.  Not only does fashion serve as a popular study that supplies jobs to people in the industry, but most importantly, fashion allows people to develop their own sense of style; as the first thing one notices about a person, one's style should reflect their personality.
          There are, of course, a few positive perspectives of school uniforms.  In some cases, uniforms prevent gangs from forming on campus, encourage discipline, and help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothing.  However, gangs can still form with uniforms, and gangs are not a big issue with most schools in the world.  Also, uniforms may encourage discipline, but this discipline is not necessary. In fact, students may not act disciplined because many may rebel against the policy of uniforms.  As for peer pressure, students need to learn to react to peer pressure in a smart way, and say no to situations they feel are unfair or unsafe.  If schools require uniforms, they lose an opportunity to allow students to grow and learn from their own sense of style.  
          When institutions and people who run them become too authoritative, they resort to unnecessary actions that limit citizens' rights. By convincing themselves they can control youth culture through school uniforms, they become totalitarian regimes, which needs to change. The debate over uniforms encompasses many bigger issues than simply what  children wear, and these uniforms should not be required anywhere in the world.  For the sake of the children, let them wear what they want and be their own individuals.
          


Works Cited

Assack, Steve. "Allentown School Board Approves Student Uniforms." Mcall.com. The Morning Call, 11   Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. 

Hendricks, Shawn. "Dress Code Disaster." NUVO. N.p., 7 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/dress-code-disaster/Content?oid=1230767>.


Wilde, Marian. "Do Uniforms Make Schools Better?" GreatSchools. Great Schools, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/121-school-uniforms.gs>.