school dress is in cross hair

Nowhere in the long history of education do you find evidence to say that school uniforms are a factor in learning. Nevertheless, many people today cannot imagine school without uniforms. When they think of a school including their own school, they think of the uniform that sets its children apart from the children of other schools. Especially on festive occasions when grand programs bring together all the schools in a city, people find something wonderful in the spectacle of marching children wearing a different uniform or showcasing their smarts. The public’s attraction to such glasses, and the history of school uniforms, point to one of the most important roles that a school uniform plays: it helps reintegrate youth. Uniformly dressed children are one of the two idealized metaphors of schooling. There is a garden where different types of flowers bloom. The other is an army of small soldiers marching together.

A History, Social Impact

If you divide the world into countries that have compulsory uniforms in schools and countries that do not, history begins to reveal itself. The education system that developed under a variety of colonial rulers generally favored strict enforcement of school uniforms. In which we are also included.

If you scour popular memories and scan old photos, you’ll find that the idea of ​​school uniforms has spread with urbanization, prosperity and personalization. In the early years of independence, schools in rural and small towns rarely insisted on a daily uniform. It was required on certain days of the week and on special days. Gradually, when different types of private schools started, they demanded wearing of prescribed uniform every day. The supply of uniforms for children from various schools provided business opportunities for local cloth merchants, tailors and shoe shops. Rather than offering competitive pricing, similar business encouraged local monopolies. In many cases, schools consented to participate and asked parents to patronize a particular source.

command-based system

This concise and clearly generalized social history has little relevance to the situation in Karnataka. Well nestled between the directorate and the court order, a full uniform code has evolved in a matter of weeks. Its governance now includes the classroom as well as the examination hall. And although Kendriya Vidyalayas (Kendriya Vidyalayas) are not governed by any provincial government, schools located in Karnataka have come in line. It’s hard not to appreciate his stance under the circumstances.

Thus, one of the most literate and prosperous states of India, globally renowned for its progress in the so-called knowledge economy, has emerged as the crucible of educational conservatism and control. The school uniform has turned into a new political tool, and as a means of curtailing the already limited autonomy of principals and teachers. The extent to which the politics of school dress will affect electoral outcomes will become a suitable topic for research in the social sciences. A systematic study of school dress, its history and attractiveness was long overdue.

It is interesting that a similar controversy erupted in the state’s secondary education system, which bypassed major policy reforms of the 1960s. Pre-university or junior colleges are now left in only a few states. Elsewhere in the country, the 10+2 model recommended by the Kothari Commission almost 60 years ago is prevalent. This led to a significant restructuring of the administrative system in education. Its full potential would be realized if school principals and teachers were given more authority and freedom in setting norms that govern institutional life.

Another benefit to the community would have been a participatory role in matters of day-to-day life in the school. Had the vision of the Kothari Report – coined by its member-secretary, JP Naik – been fully realized, the authority of the bureaucracy would have been reduced, leaving more room for school autonomy. A different kind of politics may emerge as the intellectual resource of the school. Karnataka can be a highly fertile social base for such alternative democratic politics because of its own history and tendency towards decentralized governance.

History took a different direction. A photograph of a teacher or principal of a junior college in Karnataka barring a student from entering the examination hall because of a dress item that would serve as a symbol of cruelty for many years to come. It is expected that their plight will become a topic of discussion in teacher education colleges also. This would raise the question: ‘Did she voluntarily agree to be so unkind to a student as to obey orders?’ An administrative question may also be worth noting: ‘Did the Directorate’s order on specified uniforms extend to the examination hall?’ Theoretically it did, but then it extended the general role of the school uniform – to provide a collective institutional identity. If that identity covers the exam hall, why do students need hall tickets to establish their personal identity? Let us hope that the legal argument on this issue will go into these unknown layers of the life of the learners and examinees.

key distinction

Even at this juncture, it is worth recalling an important distinction. Uniforms differ from dress code. The uniform is more prescriptive than the dress code. The latter may expect children and their parents to refrain from using clothing for pretense or money. A uniform, on the other hand, can go so far as to determine not only the color but also the material and the design or cut. In olden times, recommending a dress code was considered sufficient; Nowadays even a fully defined uniform doesn’t seem to be enough. The social ethos promotes conspicuous consumption (a phrase used by the economist, Veblen), and banquet halls serve this purpose as efficiently as schools. Uniform helps to maintain the veneer of equality in a society where inequality is rampant.

However, education is expected to promote equal opportunities for all sections and sections of society in more significant ways. An important contribution that education can make in this direction is to widen the scope of public debate, enabling the participation of all concerned, especially teachers. They are in closer contact with students from different backgrounds and, therefore, will be more sensitive to making classroom life more comfortable for all.

No modern philosopher has explained better than Sri Aurobindo the problems that lie in this state of collective existence. in ideal of human unityIn this article, he uses diversity in nature to explain why uniformity tempts us, but does not contribute to a sense of relatedness or oneness. He extends his analysis to all aspects of social, cultural and political life, including international relations. In our present context, the issue of turmoil in Karnataka pertains to the role of education and the way it functions as a system. As the word ‘uniform’ suggests, a normal dress conveys that all differences are gone.

Had this been the case in Karnataka, the directorate would not have had to press for compliance. The hopes that this flexible institution placed at the heart of the bureaucracy under colonial rule are best illustrated by a story told to me by JP Naik. The Kothari Commission had suggested ways to make classroom teaching less stereotyped, more vibrant and child-centred. Soon after the commission’s report got official approval, the directorate in Maharashtra issued a DO (i.e. quasi-government) order to all schools that, as desired by the competent authority, from now on all teaching should be child-centred!

Professor Krishna Kumar is the former Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the author of ‘Chhote Citizens’.