School uniform racket under the microscope

28 May 2012 09:29a.m.

sarah wrote:

Can we reopen this discussion? Did anything change as a result of this article in 2010? I have just arrived in NZ from overseas and my eldest starts year 1 shortly. $200 for the minimum uniform. Poor quality and only available from a single supplier. The school is decile 5. How many parents can afford this? This is an outrageous racket and something needs to change.

01 Dec 2010 11:35a.m.

Daniel wrote:

Firstly, let me say that I feel privileged to live in a country with a state funded public education system, providing opportunities that children in many other countries miss out on. Having said that however, I also feel that the uniform issue being discussed here is just one of a number of flaws that are seriously undermining the implementation of this system.

According to the Ministry of Education website, “there is no charge for primary and secondary education at state and state-integrated schools for children aged 5-19 years who are New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.”

Unless I am mistaken, the whole objective of a compulsory “no charge” public education system is to ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive an education, regardless of financial or social circumstances. Not only does this benefit the child by improving its future employment and social opportunities, but it also benefits us all as a nation by increasing the overall productivity and contributions of its citizens and reducing the demands on our social welfare system. In theory then no financial obstacle should stand in the way of a child receiving this “no charge” education, but in practice there are some serious issues with the implementation of the system.

The fact of the matter is, that this “no charge” education can only be accessed through state schools, and that these schools are apparently at liberty to impose requirements for attendance that form very real financial obstacles. As mentioned there is the matter of a ridiculously expensive compulsory uniform, but there are also things class projects which require the payment of fees for materials, and homework assignments which require the student to have access to the internet.

Even something as basic as the purchase of compulsory school stationery can be a significant financial burden to some, and then it really irks me to see that quite a few of those materials don’t even end up being used during the year.

But notwithstanding the other things mentioned, the cost of the school uniform is clearly the biggest financial mountain standing in the way of a child gaining access to the “no charge” education it is entitled to.

Although in many countries effective primary and secondary education is provided without the implementation of school uniforms, I do acknowledge that a school uniform does have its merits. However, the only aspect of a school uniform that in my opinion provides any real benefit for the child and its education is that by having every child wear the same clothing there is less chance for discrimination. Thus the child can concentrate on learning rather than having to worry about conforming to the latest accepted fashions, or being harassed if they don’t.

Any and all other perceived benefits of a school uniform are in my opinion superfluous, having no bearing on the actual education of the child. In fact, in many cases the school uniform is actually used in such a way as to undermine the establishment of equality. For example, those children whose parents cannot afford to purchase a new uniform are resigned to wear second hand clothing, which establishes segregation between rich and poor. This is further exacerbated by (high decile) schools that seem to choose a uniform style and fabric quality to emphasize their supposed superiority over other (low decile) schools.

As a solution, I would like to suggest the implementation of a sensible generic nationwide uniform, with sew-on schools decals which can be swapped if the student changes schools or grows out of their uniform. This would not only establish more equality within and between schools, but the much larger production runs and sales through various major clothing retailers would also create competition, both of which would bring down prices significantly.


Whatever happens, I would like to propose that government regulation of state schools should include the regulation of school uniforms to bring down and standardize prices to ensure that they are subordinate to the financial ability of a child receiving access to “no charge” education.

25 Feb 2010 11:40a.m.

leemichelea wrote:

No, alien, angry westie is right. Education is not free. The costs go way beyond simply clothing and feeding your child. One is forced to buy an extensive uniform from a shop many kilometres away (too bad if you don't have a car) It costs an absolute fortune - to clothe one of my three children in the full uniform would have been about $900 or so, I scrimped by getting as little as I could, but it still cost $270. Not to mention school fees which admittedly are not enforcable but subject fees and costs of unsolicited items given to your child are, and if you don't pay up it gets referred to a collection agency. My children have all left school now, thank goodness because of the ridiculous price of everything to do with school.

02 Feb 2010 12:51p.m.

Lorraine wrote:

When a family of four have to pay $1000 for one uniform for Intermediate school, I think that is terrible. Its time these schools got real and let go of the uniforms and got into tidy dress codes. Dunedin is terrible for uniforms and the stuck up attitude of some of the people backing uniforms, makes me sick.

31 Jan 2010 09:00p.m.

Daphne Carvalho wrote:

I grew up in Malaysia and started school the year that they introduced a nationwide uniform. A standard uniform was introduced for boys and girls, primary, secondary and upper secondary schools. Anyone could produce or make the uniforms as long as you followed the specifications. You can buy a uniform at the night market, department stores or make them yourself if you so desired.

The only item that differentiated the uniform was the school badge. This means that if you moved schools or towns, you didn't have to change your school uniform.

This seems like a sensible idea to get around the costs of uniforms.

30 Jan 2010 06:35p.m.

Stewart Farr wrote:

Could be worse. You could not have kids that want to go to school. $500/year to have the kids gone between 9-3........hell I would even pay $1000 for that

30 Jan 2010 03:39p.m.

going to uni wrote:

Most school uniforms aren't warm enough. And if you try to wear something extra under or over your uniform, the teachers actually have the right to make you take it off... Shouldn't it be a student's right to have clothing which is warm so they don't get sick etc? A uniform saves a lot of hassle if it is cool is summer and warm in winter - no worrying about what the other kids will think of your clothes each morning. However, wearing normal clothes in school makes school feel comfortable and normal. And it stops your teeth chattering in between classes. It makes you feel more yourself - more relaxed, and many people I know felt they could concentrate better sans uniform. Instead of controlling clothing, control actions; get the students to listen, or at least be quiet, so the work gets done. Far more important is how the students act, rather than what they wear.

30 Jan 2010 12:24p.m.

Richard G wrote:

Last year the East Coast Bays schools were shown to be among the most expensive in the country for uniforms. These are for primary school kids. $44 for a pair of shorts for a 5 year old and $45 for a polo shirt. The shorts are just blue with a nasty logo sewn on. This year my son required the "sports uniform" $78 for a blue pair of shorts and a top. The shorts if purchased from the warehouse or similar would be probably $15. Since they have a piece of light blue piping added to the bottom, they can't be sourced elsewhere. It is a monopoly supply situation. The label on the inside of the $34 sports shorts reads "This garment is designed for occasional wear. Take care when playing sports. ..." So not only are they expensive, they are made substandard on purpose!. Even at high school all I had to wear for sports was a generic pair of white shorts and a coloured singlet. I think uniforms are great since it removes the daily fight of what to wear with my daughter, but I object to the monopoly supply which lets the supplier charge whatever they think they can get away with.

30 Jan 2010 10:40a.m.

L.Rogers wrote:

As an employee of a manufacturer of school uniforms, believe me when i say its not the supplier making a huge profit from school uniforms. We work very hard for little reward to maintain our jobs in an industry which has suffered a lot with absolutely NO help or incentives from the government. As a parent i have bought second hand through our uniform shop when i could not afford brand new gear, the school chose to use a firm in China.

30 Jan 2010 09:50a.m.

Gee. wrote:

"All religious clothing, headscarfes etc should be banned completely as this also causes great division and conflict." We had a problem like this at school, except the girl was asked if she had a school pass for it. A lot of trouble was stirred because of this, offending a lot of parents, teachers and students. A rule like that isn't needed.