Fussy ‘fashion-designers' to blame for booming costs of school uniforms

Press, 17 December 1976, Page 13

Fussy ‘fashion-designers' to blame for booming costs of school uniforms

Do school uniforms make economic sense anymore? Are these often unlovely, but indestructible garments, still excellent value for money? With uniforms the price they are, it must have crossed the mind of many parents that it might be cheaper to send their children to school in mufti.

Sensible question. But the answer —- after a thorough rummage through retailers’ racks, acceptance of the findings in the August issue of “Consumer,” and talks with buyers of schoolwear for department stores — is that school uniforms are still cheaper in the long run. Cheaper, but dearer than they need to be simply because some schools are being unreasonable. If they stopped to think about it, incessant changes to uniforms can only push prices up.

If you have to fit out one of your children for secondary school next year, expect it to cost all of your husband’s weekly take-home pay. The smallest sizes of girls’- uniforms will cost from $64 to $l5B, the smallest sizes of boys’ uniforms from $4B to $l2O. Include footwear and other items, and most girls’ uniforms will cost at least $l2O.

After the price freeze comes off, some items, es-

pecially those containing wool — cardigans, blazers, shorts and trousers, school suits — will increase 10 per cent on present prices. The situation is something like this: the greater the variety, the higher the price. A change of style, change of colour, even a monogram where there was no monogram, puts the price of the garment up.

For example, if a school switches from a grey jersey to a maroon jersey, the manufacturer’s run of grey jerseys becomes shorter — and more expensive — and he has to introduce a new run of maroon jerseys, which will push up the prices of these. If the manufacturer already has a production run of maroon jerseys, it is probably of a slightly different colour — not the shade the school has ordered.

It might sound incredible, but it is not at all uncommon, for schools to be so protective of their distinctiveness that two regulation jerseys can be prescribed for two different schools of shades so close that the retailer has to squint to make sure he is not selling a purchaser the wrong shade. Ballantynes’ schoolwear department caters for 31 schools. It stocks six different shades of blue jerseys. Two buyers simulated despair when asked if schools might be induced to be less fin'nicky. Girls’ schools are the worst.

One change to one uniform doesn’t hurt anybody, but in the last five years 71 per cent of 182 schools surveyed have had major uniform changes. And the key word is major. Thirteen per cent have had three or more changes. Almost 70 per cent of the changes were made because of “a desire for greater attractiveness or distinctiveness.” But the outcome is an increasing proliferation of styles and colours, and shorter production runs for manufacturers. It would not take a prophet to pronounce increasing cost and supply problems, or summary restrictions by retailers and manufacturers.

One retailer — a major city supplier — has abandoned schoolwear; its problem is one of supply. “Put it this way,” says a former buyer for the department. “If everyone wore grey, our orders would be large. There would be no problems

with supply, and big production runs would make everything cheaper. But with everyone wanting Something different these days our orders are small. Because they are small we have to accept delays. The customer doesn’t accept delays, though. He buys somewhere else.”

“Consumer” surveyed three wooden mills, three knitting mills, and five manufacturers of school garments. They found that the three knitting mills made nine styles of boys’ jerseys in 84 colours, with 250 neckband changes. The five manufacturers made 16 styles of gym tunics and skirts in 25 colours and 10 cloths. The three woollen mills made 21 different weights and mixtures of school uniform cloth in scores of colours and tartans.

This is only the tip of production in schoolwear. With cost as our measuring stick, this amount of choice for 393 secondary schools is getting ridiculous. There seem to be two ways to go — standardise the school uniform to keep prices down and keep school uniforms cheaper in the long run, or allow a basic regulation colour or garment around which a pupil can build his or her own uniform.

The greatest plausibility attaches to more standardised uniforms. There-is really nothing to stop schools agreeing on production of a limited range of colours and materials and making sure that the same materials are Worn in widely separate regions. Manufacturers will be the first to agree. It is very expensive to set up machinery for short runs. Interestingly, Consumer’s survey showed that “a great many respondents” were in favour of a single standard uniform. This does not mean that all boys would turn out in slate grey and all girls in shapeless navy. The options would still be quite varied — only fewer, and certainly cheaper. At this stage the best thing that schools can do is to consult far more with retailers and manufacturers before they make changes. Of 182 secondary schools surveyed by "Consumer,” nearly half had not consulted retailers, and only 12 had consulted manufacturers, or the Wool Board. And there was very little discussion between schools. If the advocates for

change <fo not see reason, but insist on more and more variety, the logical end is mufti, and no school uniform. And that will be very sad because it will cost parents more to put a child through school in mufti than it does now in uniform. Mufti is not made to last for three or four years as are school uniforms, and mufti is at the mercy of fashion in a way the school uniforms were designed not to he.

The cost of replacing existing mufti gear through wear and tear —

school desks and chairs are not kind to flimsy garments — would outstrip, perhaps even annually, the bill for a school uniform made to last three or four years.

“Most people don’t realise just how much they spend on casual clothes in the course of a year,” says one schoolwear buyer for a department store. “The bill for a school uniform arrives all at once; it looks a lot. But Td still say it’s less than the total annual bill for casual wear.”

The demands of fashion on the teen-ager are strong. Even if a mufti garment is not worn out. it will not be worn at all if it is no longer trendy. It has been said that 60 per cent of the arguments before breakfast in the average home in the United States are about what the

kids say they will not wear to school that day. Senior uniform is often the defence schools give to justify changes. The argument for senior uniform is a fair one. except that there is a tendency to extend the privilege into the lower forms, or to placate jealous juniors by allowing changes to the junior uniform, too

School uniform is a good discipline, and school is a training ground. Where schools want to introduce a senior uniform they are usually responding to pressure from teen* agers. If some children have to wear what they don’t like for four or five years of their life, the hardship will not kill them.

School uniform helps study. A child of poorer parents will not concentrate well while she feels self-conscious about her outdated mufti. Nor will any girl who is watching the trendsetters — and nor will the boys. A school uniform is a good social leveller. When everyone is dressed alike attention is less likely to wander.

But with uniforms at their present prices, “Consumer” has a point to make. A school uniform cannot be said to remove social differences, it says, if the poorer family has to pay proportionately more to have its poverty decently concealed.