By Ashish Rajpal
Illustration: Amruta Patil

Children are different. Let school express this truth.

Children who have the option to express themselves are more accepting of those who are different. An individual's style comes from many places: background, environment, their own character. Limiting the dress choice does not make them same or similar.

"It is OK to be different", "Be yourself," "Don't be afraid to stand out." These words have been spoken so many times to us from childhood to adulthood. We say that each child is unique and in the same breath, we try to bring about a superficial uniformity. Uniforms contradict the self-expression and creativity teachers have been trying to instill in students for so many years. Forcing students to wear uniforms takes away their ability to show their uniqueness - a quality that ought to be encouraged throughout the education process.

The Equity Argument is fallacious & erroneous

The 'equity' argument goes like this: if children wear uniforms, they will not notice differences between children from rich and from poor families, they will not be envious of each other's clothes. This 'equity' argument is often put forward by State Schools. The reason for this may be that it is a purely socialist argument and it may be rejected for this reason alone. Even as a socialist argument, it does not make much sense. School uniforms may make all students look alike.Why, then, are teachers exempt from the evenness? The teacher is allowed to dress casually, while the student has to wear uniforms!

Children obsess with clothes because parents do

Are we really saying that many children are so obsessed with their looks that their work are being affected? A young child obsessed with clothing reveals a deeper social malaise. Let's not pretend to disguise it by forcing uniforms. Lets address it by giving them something else to obsess with.
We should be concerned about keeping children absorbed and engaged in our school activities and clothes should be viewed as a necessity and not a fashion statement. The demands of the future include qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, individuality, originality, a spontaneous personality, taking initiatives, being able to cope with change, etc. Uniformity is not something to be proud of.

The 'ease/ eliminate choice' argument is inconsistent, incomplete

The 'ease' argument says that school uniforms make it easier for students to choose what they are to wear at school. The point is that the 'choice' is not so much made 'easy' by virtue of uniformity, the choice is easy because there is no choice. The real question is if choice is good for children. Taking away children's right to choose what to wear does not make life any easier, it just makes children accustomed to conformity, to following orders and walking in line without thinking, without making a choice. This creates a huge amount of psychological problems later in life, it reduces the opportunity to make choices, it reduces the overall quality of life. If parents otherwise ask children what to wear when they are going for a movie, for play, for games, then why can't they give the choice as to what children should wear to school? There is no substantial research to show that school uniforms have a positive impact on children, bring about a sense of belonging, create healthy emotional climate or promote growth and achievement in schools. There are schools in many parts of India that do not have school uniforms and are progressive schools that we look up to. It is all about creating a caring classroom community for our children.

When we talk to children, many of them suggest that there should be no uniforms because it is ugly, and makes them look like they are going for an army parade. Who needs a landscape dominated by penguin esque uniformity and robotic sameness? n

© mindfields 2007