We were driving back from an early morning drive + trek near Pune when I spotted this bunch of happy school goers. Rows of girls followed by rows of boys and then again the girls… All shepherded by a few extremely harassed teachers.
Happy kids in their smart bright blue and khaki school uniforms… straining at the leash to break away from the line…
And then I looked down… A few were wearing shoes, some chappals – while many of them were not wearing anything on their feet…
It had been raining the whole night and the day before – and the roads were muddy and potholey…
Oh, the children did not seem to mind it in the least – they were one large boisterous bunch. But here is my question…
Should schools in rural (or obviously poorer) areas insist on a school uniform for their students?
Does it serve any purpose – or is it one more case of blind follow-the-letter but-not-attempt-to-even-understand-the-spirit rules that infest our country?
Is the money that a school uniform takes better spent on footwear, books and bags for the children? Considering that this money is spent by parents who are already struggling to send their children to school, sometimes against all odds…
Update : Patrix has this post today on A Uniform School Code, in which he also links to a column by Raghavendra Rathore on rediff in praise of uniform design
Actually, it needn’t be “either-or”. Uniforms (i’m a believer in them) go a long way in creating equality (especially in an unequal society), and in some cases, kids who can barely afford clothes get a clean set of uniforms. Go for it, I say.
As far as the money for these things go……there is the money, it isn’t being spent. Only a trickle reaches the bottom. And India is still a long, long way from spending even 5% of its official GDP on education….
well… yes, it does seem sad that some children must go barefoot because they cannot afford shoes, especially in rainy weather when roads get so messy. but one good thing though is that a uniform does help to reduce the blatant inequalities in wealth you know. and its a small but significant step in helping a student develope discipline.
yes I agree about school uniforms creating a sense of equality – but two things here
1. how unequal can kids from a poor community be? how much would the difference between the richest and poorest kids be in what is overall a poor struggling communinty? if the aim is that, then the school can have strict guidelines about say, jewellery and accesories like watches…
2. sunil, when I said money spent,I meant money that parents spent but the state – when parents are struggling to send their children to school (cost of books and fees + the opportunity cost of not sending the child to work), is the additional burden of a uniform justified?
and the money that is allocated for education in India does not reach the bottom as you say, and also much of it is spent on higher and not primary / elemntary education – basic policy skeleton in our cupboard!
Yeah,Charu…point to be noted!!
Actually, Charu, you’ll be surprised to find out how unequal a small rural school can be. I’ve seen rural schools (govt) where there are kids of landless laborers, and also kids of the richest landowners in the village, in the same classroom. The disparity is pretty large….one set of kids get dropped off by one of their servants in a tractor, the other set walks 3 km to school, bag in had…….so, it really is not always a poor, struggling community at all!
Also, I’ve seen the kids get a tremendous sense of self-esteem and pride on wearing the uniform. In their minds, it gives them something to be proud of.
These are intangibles…….but do make a big difference.
Sunil, you are right about the disparities – but the “rich” kids are the exception in these cases… but for me, the grounded reality of having to walk barefoot to school and make do with hand me down torn books weighs stronger than the emotional value of pride and self esteem – I know this sounds cruel, but these are higher level emotions and it is necessary to take care of physical needs first – in this case, keeping foot covered
uniforms create a sense of oneness and belonging.. but it should never supercede the more important aspects of learning, education.. and these children should be educated in the more practical sense than just texbooks.. so they learn the skills to responsible and hopefully better living..
Nice post. I do see your point – and I agree it is very sad that so many kids dont even have any foot wear. But I think the benefits of a uniform outweigh its costs.
I think Sunil is right – there are disparities, even in the most rural of communities – and it doesnt have to be between the rich and poor – it can be between the poor and poorer. The uniform can help to hide these disparities. Heck, you can live with a pair or two through your entire school life and no one will ever know. Even when you get hand me downs from your siblings, its not so obvious. And to the young minds, I think some of these social differences can be quite difficult to accept. And most uniforms are not that expensive – if its not uniforms, it will be some other clothes that the parents have to buy. Either way – the expense is there. Its better that the kids have some clothes to wear, even if they dont wear shoes.
Kishore, Surya, I somehow missed seeing these comments till just now.
Is true that uniforms creat a sense of oneness and somewhat levels the field. But I keep wondering about whether the additional burden on parents that it imposes is worth the benefit that it provides…?
I have wondered about the wisdom of uniforms in poor areas as well. I think that the reason is so that all the children have something to wear. In Uganda, the children outside school can be seen in ripped and torn clothing which barely covers them, so uniforms are good.
However, bare feet are a wonderful blessing which should not be taken from children who already have so little. Feet are all-weather, self-repairing, and cost-free. Rural children of all social strata have been going to school barefoot for all of the few centuries in which schools have existed. Bare feet are not “sad” as can be seen from the “happy faces” of the children observed in this blog post. Bare feet are a simple delight denied to many in the wealthy one-third world who, ignorant of the pleasure, have misplaced sympathy for poorer children.
I just came across your picture on Flickr and followed the links here. I grew up and live in the US. I don’t think that it is sad that these kids do not have footwear. They certainly seem no worse for wear. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe these kids have shoes but simply elected not to wear them due to the rain or mud possibly ruining them? Or out of personal preference? Basic footwear is pretty cheap nowadays. Most of the children in these pictures seem to be wearing sport sandals, which are a bit beyond a basic pair of flip-flops.
It was not too long ago in this country that children would attend school barefoot. In fact, some children still attend school barefoot today. In the early 1990’s, I had a girlfriend with a six-year-old son who always went barefoot. In fact, he had thrown his shoes into a tree chipper the year before I met his mother. He went barefoot to school even in the winter snow. He simply preferred to go barefoot and his mother allowed him to do so.
I personally think that it is sad that children don’t seem to go barefoot in this country anymore. When I was a child, most of my friends and I went barefoot during the summer. Back then, there were no sport sandals for boys. One had a choice of bare feet or fully enclosed shoes. I tend to think that the rise of the sport sandal is responsible for the decline in bare feet among the young.
In my opinion, the whole uniform thing is kind of silly. I think a better solution would be for the school to have a set of requirements for clothing and allow students to wear what they want within that structure to allow for individuality.
Hi, I came across this site through a general search for “bare feet opinion” on Google.
It seems that when people wear the same clothes, they still have different personalities and social status. Trying to hide these through uniforms doesn’t necessarily teach them equality. They might be equal in outward appearance, but they’re still different people with different places in life. The same could be said for wearing shoes, whether or not a uniform is worn. Just because someone is walking around barefoot in a place like a school or business setting, doesn’t mean that person is poor, or trailer trash, or homeless, or whatever. People do have choices.
I think the American society is extremely bent on appearances. If the person, object, or setting looks good, then it is, whether it is or not. The nice appearance might be hiding problems underneath. I say, teach kids to be good (and become educated) people and let that shine through, and their outward appearances probably won’t matter so much.