Finn McRedmond posits that school uniforms promote discipline, bring parity to diverse social backgrounds, and teach youngsters vital life lessons – they won’t always get their way. The Michaela Community School, situated in North West London, enforces a range of stringent rules reminiscent of Charles Dickens’ era. Students are expected to file in a single line, dine in predetermined groups of six, abstain from corridor conversations, and adhere to a robust uniform protocol. The school’s headteacher, Katherine Birbalsingh, affirms the crucial role of discipline in facilitating social equilibrium, arguing that its absence can breed impulsive, discourteous and exclusionary behaviour among adolescents.
Social equilibrium contributes to academic achievement, an objective difficult to attain in a discordant learning environment. The Michaela Community School is a paragon of this philosophy. Despite one in four students being entitled to free school meals, the institution consistently sends a higher percentage of its students to elite universities compared to the national average. This seemingly contradicts demographical expectations, suggesting that the school’s approach has been effective.
Without undermining the importance of school uniforms, successful academic and personal development within the school setting is a multilayered endeavour. However, uniforms offer a simple, noticeable, and non-critical avenue to foster a sense of social unity and the coveted “harmony”. Students are required to dress identically daily, and the non-compliance is treated as a breach of discipline. This practice can hardly be more elementary.
School uniforms – reminiscing on her bottle green and tartan uniform, McRedmond dubs them economic levelers. Adolescents, owing to their socially competitive and sometimes hostile nature, quickly create hierarchies. Attires often act as status symbols, providing cursory insights into individuals’ social standing. Eradicating personal style makes it harder for students to differentiate based on economic status, potentially discouraging their more exclusionary impulses. The argument for this strategy seems so clear that it barely needs explaining.
Anna Galvin recounts her emotional experience during Kerry’s 31-year All-Ireland wait, revealing that she was overcome with tears after the match’s third goal on the field.
The persistent issue of racism in Northern Ireland has been underscored by the recent riots in Belfast, revealing the day-to-day struggles faced by minority communities.
On another note, Kellie Harrington is presently intent on continuing her activities, trusting that history will remember her appropriately.
For film enthusiasts, the top 50 movies available on Netflix are noteworthy, complemented by notable selections from platforms including Disney+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, and Paramount+.
The debate around school uniforms frequently devolves into vague discussions of individuality and the need for adolescents to form separate identites. It would be misguided to say that we are limiting adolescents’ avenues of self-expression if we prohibit them from choosing their own clothing. Teenagers have a multitude of ways to display their unique personalities, such as through their choice of literature, musical instruments, and academic disciplines. Contending that uniforms stifle self-expression indicates a superficial understanding of its meanings and various forms. Moreover, children are free to wear what they prefer during the weekend.
Destroying deeply ingrained societal norms without justified reason is not a commendable or respectable proclivity.
While students may object to uniforms for being uncomfortable, restrictive, or unfashionable, there are many other things that we deny teenagers despite their preferences. They are not typically known for their abilities to make informed decisions about their wellbeing. Teaching them the harsh realities of life, such as inherent responsibilities regardless of our feelings towards them, is a meaningful lesson. If it can be imparted through something as trivial as a school uniform, then all the better.
The practical benefits of uniforms are many: they instil discipline, level the social playing field, and do not excessively restrict the formation of adolescent personality, serving as a reminder to children that they won’t always have their way. But there’s more to defending uniforms than these functional factors. They hold inherent value as a tradition. Disrupting widely accepted customs for no apparent reason fails to reflect good judgement or honour. In a world and academic environment continually transformed by technology and subjected to ever-changing state policies, preserving some elements of the past seems sensible.
However, Jen Hogan opposes the idea – she views these costly, confined, bulky, excessively formal, and outrageously priced outfits as an outmoded notion.
At a certain point in my life, the argument for school uniforms might have swayed me. This is largely due to the power of tradition which often leads us to accept things without further scrutiny. This applies even to somewhat nonsensical practices like assigning homework to primary school students. I have personal experiences of wearing unworkable uniforms in distinctly wine and grey colours during my primary education, and later another uncomfortable uniform in a rather unattractive shade of snot-green at secondary school. Nobody ever seemed to challenge the cumbersome attire, including stiff shirts, awkward skirts, constrictive pinafores, firm black footwear and impractical gaberdine coats offering no warmth or waterproofing. Also troublesome were the short knickers for physical education, a clothing item that often induced anxiety in teenage girls particularly during their menstrual cycle.
Fast forward a few years and the only advantage I can now see is the convenience of not having to choose daily attire for my kids. Nevertheless, this is where my approval ends. I believe the old fashioned concept of school uniforms, notorious for their high costs, constrictive nature, formal design, ridiculous pricing and impracticality, has run its course.
Barnardos recently released a report coinciding with the school start period. The report unveiled that a mere 30% of parents considered the school-related costs manageable, while 81% indicated that their children’s schools did not offer an affordable alternative for uniforms. This is despite an official circular from the Department of Education in 2017, which outlined necessary steps to help schools lower uniform and other related expenses.
In spite of our concerns about the struggles our children encounter with basic motor skills, we still insist on dressing them in unsuitable attire for yard play and even for bike rides to school.
The regulation purportedly states that each component of a school uniform should be accessible for purchase in various stores, with only iron or sew on badges permitted. However, seven years have passed since the regulation and parents are still burdened with high costs for emblem adorned jumpers, sportswear, ties, polo shirts and coats due to schools’ reluctance in implementing these measures. No thought is given to the prevailing fact that children have a propensity to mislay, damage and outgrow these high-priced items regularly.
Whilst costs play a significant role, other considerations cannot be ignored. We advise our children and adolescents to maintain their own identity while blending into the crowd, burdening them with impractical garments like stiff-collared shirts, trousers and skirts that are largely unfit for their needs. This kind of formal dress code has been left behind since the pandemic, as we’ve transitioned to more comfort-oriented attire as adults. Such dress codes do not allow for individual expression or authenticity.
We express concern over the difficulties our kids encounter in developing fundamental movement skills, yet we impose attire that obstructs their ability to freely move and play during recess or even to bike to school. We justify this on the grounds that uniforms ensure equality, minimising the disparities between the affluent and the less privileged – a perspective that overlooks life’s harsh realities and the fact that uniforms alone cannot disguise these. We often fail to recognise that uniforms can symbolise different status in certain societal groups. Uniforms have also proven ineffective in dealing with the widespread issue of bullying in our educational settings.
We vehemently advocate for inclusivity, yet impose a formal uniform system that fundamentally contradicts it. For kids with special needs who find heavy textures overwhelming, unabatingly itchy sweaters, rigid collars and tight footwear can pose significant problems. Permitting them to don tracksuits while the rest of their peers are in formal uniform doesn’t promote inclusion – it singles them out. Children require action, not just tokenistic gestures.
Moreover, we must consider our older students, who, in their final year of school, are fully fledged adults. They are eligible to vote and go to bars during the weekend if they wish, yet during the week, they are required to wear uniform. They are told to “step up and take responsibility for your lives,” while still being treated like schoolchildren with these formal clothing requirements.
The time has come to apply some logic and rethink our approach.