Followers

Thursday, December 30, 2010

On Uniforms and Dress Codes

Bangalore: If you are a college student in India's Silicon city, be prepared for security guards to stare you down if you aren't "properly" dressed. In fact, they can refuse entry to students if they aren't "decently" attired. Worse, if your tank top doesn't measure up to the outsourced guard's sense of morality, you will be fined… College authorities admit that security guards are authorised to monitor the dress code… "…We are preparing students for a professional life…"
In B'lore, college guards enforce dress code; The Times of India, New Delhi; Saturday, March 20, 2010, p. 11

Once upon a time, I worked in a school in which teachers were forbidden to wear starched cotton saris. In fact, they were encouraged not to wear saris at all. The dress code, if one could call it that since there was complete freedom afforded to the faculty in this matter, comprised of jeans and comfortable t-shirts or kurtas. The die-hard sari cadre was inspired to seek comfort in salwar-kameez or churidar-kurtas. And they were reformed….

The children of this school were, initially, allowed to wear whatever they wanted to. Then, acting on requests from parents who wanted their lives simplified, the school introduced jeans and t-shirts for the students. At one point of time, it was quite easy to mistake a teacher for a student.

There was, of course, a philosophy behind this apparent madness. The school's vision envisaged a place in which there were no artificial barriers between teacher and student, especially those created by attire. As one founder-teacher put it, "If a little child wants to plop down in the teacher's lap, she or he should not feel hindered by the starch. And the teacher too should not have to worry about the pleats falling awry."

This was a school in which "academic" teachers regularly trooped down to the soccer field or the basketball court with their children and played with them. They observed their students in contexts other than their own limiting subjects. But what the dress code really made space for was an approach to education which made a lot of sense: teachers were constantly, weather permitting, holding classes outdoors. What better way to teach Wordsworth than in early spring when the dahlias burst the garden with colour? How can a classroom experience of area and perimeter compete with actually going out to the field, measuring and marking the exact area required for various sports and athletic events? We did not need ICT to teach the children about pollination - we just took them out and settled them down to quietly observe the butterflies at it. If we needed an effective setting to discuss dominant and recessive genes, we strolled down to the sweet-pea trellis, and the name Gregor Mendel was always indelibly linked with the dusty fragrance of the colourful flowers. I could indulge in many purple passages on the excitement of working in such a school - the day-to-day delight of teachers and students alike - of the curious phenomenon of students who did not want to go home at the end of the day and who hated weekends as these kept them away from school; the even more curious phenomenon of a body of dynamic teachers who did not really care about the paycheck and did not treat being in school as a job.

However, imagine doing all of the above clad in your organza or Kanjeevaram? Or even in your pleated trouser with matching jacket?

And what is the significance of this clothing style, you ask. It was deep: in the absence of the "teacher-image", students found us approachable simply because we looked like them, not like figures of authority. It led to an exchange of views and ideas, not being afraid to admit that we didn't know something, and then being detectives hunting down the information together. It made a lot of sense. The clinching factor, in case you haven't seen it yet, was that WE did not see ourselves as different from our students. All educationists worth their salt will tell you that the best teachers are those who approach their subject not as experts of their fields but as enquirers or learners.

This was, as I said, "once upon a time". It seems like a fairy-tale land which no longer exists, thus inspiring the opening phrase. The school attracted the kind of parent who is not looking for high grades from the child - or a delivery mechanism to turn the child into an info-regurgitating machine. These were parents who thought about what sort of education would help their child to be happy and fulfilled as a grown-up. They were parents who were dissatisfied with the strait-jacketed, exam-oriented system which was out to kill the uniqueness of the child.

It was before the corporatization of education took place. And with this came a new philosophy that saw parents as potential clients. A natural outcome was that suddenly all schools, right-wing, left-wing, and bang centre, reviewed what their teachers were wearing, and enforced strict dress codes. Simultaneously, any debate about uniforms for children went, instantly, flying out of the window.

To understand the above phenomenon, here's an example of how dress codes work in many ad agencies. While the client-servicing people are required to wear complete formals, the "creative" people are given complete freedom to dress any which way they want. The logic: the client-servicing executives deal with the clients and must present a certain image to inspire confidence; on the other hand, the "creative" people are not supposed to be hindered by uncomfortable attire lest their creativity be blocked.

Transfer this information to a school's adult community: those people who deal directly with parents-the-potential-clients must dress formally so that they are viewed seriously. Imagine the head of admissions or marketing in a pair of faded jeans! God forbid! Parents would definitely wonder about the quality of education on offer. But should not the school's "creative" division be allowed to dress in accordance with comfort? The creative division being, in this case, the faculty….

Not really. For, parents often interact with faculty members, and would they be able to trust that I, dressed in jeans, will be able to effectively take their children through the Drama or English curriculum? Will they not see my casual approach to my clothing style as a casual attitude towards my work as well?

The debate here does not focus on whether or not formals affect our ability to work more professionally. It does not even wonder about the effects of attire on creativity. In fact, the debate really exists only in small pockets of teacher-groups who feel that we need to prepare our students to question more and accept less on face value. And here is where the contradiction strikes one horribly between the eyes.

The corporate world is about unquestioningly following orders. It will brook no dispute with company policies which are printed without embarrassment in Times New Roman 10 Points sometimes in Bold on documents you have autographed with or without hesitation. You don't like it? Well, there's the door, and don't bang it on your way out.

Faced with that attitude, most slink back to their cubicles, tail between their legs, grit their teeth and silently curse the day they signed on the dotted line. Of course, there are those few who do use the door, some who even bang it on the way out. Many of them make it bigger than the company they quit. Some, unfortunately, find another equally oppressive situation, and learn to live with it. Do these different responses have anything to do with the way these individuals were taught in school?

The word "teach" is from Old English tǣcan, from a Germanic root meaning "show" (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, Page 1429). Therefore, a teacher must "show"…?

But before a teacher can "show", s/he must ask:
Should I prepare my students to be the slink-back-to-cubicle type of person or the door-banger gutsy guy who is principled and ruled by what s/he believes to be right?
Should I nurture the creative uniqueness of my students or through devices such as neatly tucked-in uniforms convey to them that no matter who they are inside, they have to live according to certain pre-defined standards and appearances?
But most importantly, should I treat this corporate culture as one that my students should accept or teach them to question the very basis of Appearances vs Actual Quality?

Uniforms and dress codes are but a symptom of the deep-rooted superficiality (although that sounds like an oxymoron, I suspect that it isn't) that forms the foundation of the corporate world. They garb and cloak mediocrity under shiny ties and well-cut jackets; they straitjacket originality of thought and enforce conventionality. They contradict the very basis of any sound educational philosophy: that each child has a unique potential, and the true role of education is to help bring that potential to fruition.


We tell our children not to judge a book by its cover and in the same breath pull them up for the tie gone awry; does no one see the contradiction?
**********************************************************************************
Some responses from friends on Facebook:

Rukmini Sen December 31 at 1:04pm Reply
Uniform is a good idea. If we agree that EDUCATION is indeed a RIGHT! if we agree that education should be EQUALLY distributed...which means we take care of special needs of everybody and treat every kid with dignity...then we would see kids from different sections of society coming to same kind of schools. In such a case parents of lower income group can relax if there is an uniform or 'study clothes'. The focus will shift from trendy clothes to basics...sports, music, drama, fun and education...

***

Jayanto Banerjee December 31 at 12:46pm Reply
i have always had a problem with this 'uniform' debate, where the politically correct answer is to shun all forms of dress codes. and this coming from someone who IS in advertising.
this comment is purely from my personal point of view and experience. it centres around 2 core premises:
1. why do we believe a 'dress code' hinders 'creativity'?
2. i think it is extremely important to 'dress up' for work and it allows me to 'switch on and off' from work.

let me start with the first issue. there is a school of thought that says truly great ideas come not from 'thinking out of the box,' but by 'thinking within the box.' what this means is that, think within the framework of a problem or an opportunity. i really believe 'school uniforms' build discipline --- not in the sense of conforming to 'corporate culture' but fosters 'discipline in thinking - in applying a logical process in understanding and learning.' while 'discipline and rigor in creativity' sounds like an oxymoron, it is probably the single most important thing FOR genuine creativity.

the second point is even more important for me as a person. 'dressing up' for work and 'dressing down' when i get home plays a huge factor in my being able to separate my work and my personal life. even when i work from home, i find it aids my productivity (and focus) when i dress up, sit at the table and swith off the TV --- rather than sit on the bed in my shorts with my laptop on my, well, lap. dressing up in 'work clothes' allows me to switch on to my 'work mode' and conversely and as importantly when the time comes to 'switch off.'

as a head of an ad agency office for the last 5 years, i can count the number of times i've worn a tie to work (maybe 10). my usual dress code is chinos, shirts and a jacket. smart casual as it is called nowadays. much as the 'jholas of JNU' don't foster 'intellectualism', neither does an unshaven, crumpled shirt(ed) creative person in an ad agency foster creativity.

and lastly (and i've kept this for the last as i have very little authority to speak for or against educationalists), i also believe that children in their formative years need 'role models' from their 'teachers.' this does not contradict with them being 'fellow enquirers.'but i've personally always lost respect for teachers who try hard to be 'friends with the students.' please teacher - dont try and be a friend - be a good teacher who i can look up to.

moyna's school here (which is an IB) has a flexible uniform. a choice of 4 colours for the T-shirt (light blue, dark blue, yellow and white - with a small school logo) with blue or black trousers/ pants/ skirts/ capris etc. the student has a choice every morning to decide which colour to wear to school that day and whether to wear a skirt or trousers.....
if you visit the school, initially you think there is no uniform.
somehow i like the uniform with 'choice' concept. it has a certain amount of discipline, without it being rigid and totally, ahem, uniform.

***
Abhimanyu Dasgupta January 3 at 9:47am Reply
Finally managed to read through your blog! Made me reflect too on my wide ranged experiences in different schools and their norms with regards to the uniform! Have seen both sides of the story! Finally my rule of thumb, which is guided by the only proverb taught by my mother in Hindi... ap ruchi khana aur par ruchi pehna, is that as in Rome dress like the Romans! ;)

Shirin Hasrat January 3 at 11:43am Reply
Surprizingly, or maybe not so, my mother said something similar in Hindi, "Khao apni pasand ka, pehno dusron ki pasand ka." The one reason why uniforms make sense is that there is equality and no "keeping up with the Jonses' syndrome.

Divya Oberoi January 4 at 10:40am Reply
As a parent of two boys I think uniforms is extremely important in Schools because it make our children believe in equality of Education and inculcates a sense of DISCIPLINE in the young minds. ANOTHER ASPECT OF ALL THIS COULD BE YOU SPEND LESS TIME ARGUING WHAT YOUR CHILD SHOULD WEAR TO SCHOOL.