A sensible policy for school uniforms

As thousands of schoolchildren return to their classes this morning, the thorny issue of school uniforms has again been raised by parents, school administrators, the Consumer Affairs Authority and the Department of Education. Today the vast majority of schools adopt a policy that students must wear a uniform. While few doubt that such a policy ensures that children look smarter and elegant in uniform, many are questioning whether the way this policy is implemented is indeed sensible.

The Malta Competition and Consumer Authority has issued a consultation report aimed at making the school uniforms market more competitive by introducing guidelines aimed at reducing costs while letting schools use their own branding on these uniforms. State schools have already taken steps in this direction. If implemented by all schools, these guidelines should overcome the imperfections that so often characterise small markets and that deny consumers the benefits of competition.

One of the more important recommendations of this report is that “school uniform designs should be kept as simple as possible, avoiding any unnecessary elaborate design or unusual colour, complicated patterns, embroidered school names and piping”. Many suspect that the practice of adopting elaborately designed school uniforms is a way of ensuring that only one preselected supplier could in fact supply such a uniform at a price that was not necessarily competitive.

In times when most parents have to struggle to cope with the effects of a more challenging economic environment, it is sensible that the often vaunted advantages of liberalisation of markets and open competition are indeed allowed to materialise. Last year an important report about the need for the state to give more support to those families who send their children to independent schools highlighted the high cost of educating children in such schools. One significant item of cost mentioned was that of providing school uniforms that often have to be changed every year.

While many seem to agree that parents have indeed a right to choose where to educate their children, the state must help such parents to take up this option. The new guidelines on school uniforms, therefore, contribute towards supporting parents whose children attend private schools.

The Consumer Affairs Authority is right in pointing out that the present system of “restricting the purchase of uniforms to an exclusive retailer, excluding the possibility that uniforms may be purchased from any retailer” is a matter of concern in that it infringes consumers’ rights to the benefits of competition.

If, and when, these guidelines are adopted, hopefully by all schools, it is important that the introduction of new uniforms is preceded by the involvement of the different interested parties in the planning process. Parents should not shy away from the task of getting involved in deciding how school uniforms for their children are designed and produced.

While the Ministry of Education now procures such uniforms by public tender, there may be options that are more suitable for other schools. Ideally a big part of the uniform kit, including shirts, skirts, trousers and blazers, should have a generic design so that they can be bought from any shop selling such items.

One hopes that the publication of this consultation report by the Consumers Affairs Authority is the first of many that will address the imperfections that characterise our small market. Similar policies that encourage competition elsewhere will ensure more benefits for consumers.