Uniformity versus Individuality

In "The Scotsman" on Wednesday 2nd March, Judith Gillespie gave her opinion on school uniforms. This followed comments by Jack McConnell who attacked the dominance of a liberal educational establishment and highlighted the opposition to school uniform as one of the crucial factors in under-achievement.

Judith Gillespie, SPTC Development Manager said:

Recently Jack McConnell criticised the "liberal" culture of the 1980s for making praise of achievement and criticism of failure "unfashionable". He claimed this process has been "devastating" for thousands of Scottish pupils - a touch of political hyperbole, there. His comments came as he prepared to unveil a new "schools for ambition" programme which will include recognition of individual achievement and will encourage school pupils to stand out against the crowd. Strange then that he also advocates school uniform, for school uniform is the antithesis of standing out against any crowd. It means what it says on the tin - everyone looks the same.

This denial of difference is nothing new. When I moved to a secondary school in the 50s, my new- found enthusiasm for running was quickly stifled on the grounds that "it celebrated individual success whereas we (the school) prefer a team effort". I was rubbish at team sports and spent most of my time trying to stay as far away from the ball as possible. But more, it taught me the utter hypocrisy of the school. Individual achievement may have been denied in sport but it was treated to public pronouncement at school assembly when it concerned exam success.

Similarly, it didn't take me long to identify their hypocrisy over school uniform. The adult argument that school uniform ended competition and meant you couldn't tell the rich from the poor was rubbish. Rich kids had uniform that looked smart and fitted, while those of us with less money made do with second-hand stuff or, worse, home-made gear that never fitted properly. As for competition, that just moved to areas that escaped adult attention.

Another problem with uniform is that whilst it may be uniform, adolescent bodies most certainly are not. What looks fine on a sylph-like pre-teen looks preposterous on a lumpy adolescent. At least these days, with the demise of real ink pens, youngsters are spared the indignity of wearing white shirts that resemble a piece of blotting paper.

But where's the chance to express individualism that's so beloved of the new drive to create a more enterprising culture? Where's the chance to experiment with clothes and work out individual identity? Admittedly, at a recent school prize-giving I was impressed at the inventiveness of some youngsters in managing to turn an ordinary shirt and tie into a fashion statement. Their "enterprise" should certainly be commended even though it wasn't exactly "approved" by the school management team - but I don't think it's quite what Jack has in mind.

We may have moved away from the days when children were meant to be seen but not heard, but adults still demand that everyone looks uniformly neat and tidy. I say let the rebels break out and, as long as their clothes do not pose a safety risk, let youngsters enjoy individuality and discover who they are.

To read the article in full go to: www.scotsman.com