One size does not fit all in school uniforms debate – Editorial
School uniforms have long been a contentious topic.
Those who support them cite equality and safety for children, as well as instilling a sense of pride and identity. Those against often favour freedom of choice and individuality.
There’s also the argument that the cost of a uniform could be better spent on other things of more benefit to a child.
As the cost of living continues to batter many families and caregivers, the price of school uniforms has arisen as an election issue.
The Act Party says it will campaign on reducing the “absolutely ridiculous” cost of state school uniforms – some clocking up around the $1000 mark for one set – but has no plans to scrap them.
Education spokeswoman Laura McClure reckons families could save $250 per child each year if state schools were limited to three compulsory branded items and generic items such as shorts, pants, skirts, skirts and socks were available from retailers such as The Warehouse and Kmart.
“We fund state schools to deliver education, not to force parents to pay more than they need to for basic clothing,” McClure said.
Similar reforms will be introduced in Britain in September, with schools limited to three branded uniform items.
However, New Zealand School Boards Association president Meredith Kennett told Newstalk ZB while the cost of some uniforms is high, it would be “overreach” for the Government to decide on uniforms.
“It is a school board decision on how a school is governed and the policies that are in place, so it’s not actually something currently that the Government really should be saying.”
Kennett, whose children attend a uniform-free school, says boards are thinking about more than money – they talk to their communities and consider issues such as equality and health and safety for children.
While some schools require uniform items to be bought from a single supplier, others already provide more affordable options, including some generic items and uniform shops where second-hand items are available.
Act’s proposal may appeal to people whose children attend a school with a high price tag for compulsory uniform items.
But it will do nothing for those who attend low-decile schools where the boards are well aware of costs and the ability to pay.
Many of those school boards already support generic uniform items. Some, knowing that food is not available at home, provide breakfast so children are set up to learn.
The uniform cost proposal will certainly win some support but political parties would do better to look at other ways to support people who can’t afford transport to get to The Warehouse, let alone buy anything there.