Skip to main content

Should school uniforms go?


A suggestion by the MUT in its pre-election document for political parties to consider abolishing school uniforms has sparked quite a discussion on the online media, especially on timesofmalta.com.

At the beginning of this scholastic year, school uniforms were already on the agenda, and the parliamentary Social Affairs committee issued its recommendations in February this year, basically recommending simplicity and less frequent changes in uniform design, and no exclusive contracts with one supplier. The Education Ministry had agreed with these proposals and said that most of them were already being implemented.

I am of the opinion that uniforms should stay. First of all, the argument that uniforms are expensive and removing them would ease the expenses off parents' pockets does not hold water. On the contrary, kids would require more clothes, apart from the competitive element of what clothes to wear, risking a higher element of bullying on kids coming from poorer families especially in secondary school. A uniform also provides a more visible sense of equal footing, where a student is assessed in class only on his academic abilities, in the pitch on his physical and athletic abilities, in the art-room on his creativity, in the hall on his performing ability...and never on his attire.

Uniforms also give students a sense of belonging to the school they are attending, and make it more difficult for them to venture outside school-grounds, as the uniform would be easily identifiable.

Uniforms therefore make life easier for parents, educators, and students. If the only difficulty is their price, it can be solved with the most obvious solution which keeps prices down: free up the market, remove exclusivity and monopolies, and increase competition. Thankfully, that's what the Social Affairs committee is proposing and that's what state schools have started to implement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually acceptable. You may

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is