Thai Parents Brace For Higher Student Uniform Costs

[harrry]

It is not one uniform it is about 3.

For my niece it is:

1. The blue skirt white shirt.

2: The sports uniform of tracksuit pants and top.

3: The guide uniform.

THe blue skirt white top needs 2 because there are always special occasions.

[allucero]

It Is Time to start buying their uniforms from China... I know last year the price was expensive and attending a private school the cost continue to rise not counting the extras throughout the school year. I moved to Thailand last year and was feeling the rise in all costs then after taking a $20,000 loss I am now back in the USA where taxes are high but you can live well... I will only visit Thailand now. That is also getting expensive, but that is another story!!!

[rubl]

Complaints, complaints. The government explained a few times already why the government provided subsidy on books and school clothes had to go. It was because of all the kids would get a tablet PC instead.

[Phatcharanan]

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

No, it is not back to square one. Of course for the poorest of families it will be an additional burden. For the poorest families, buying school uniforms has long been a difficult amount of money to come up with at any one time. For most families, it will mean an increased annual expenditure of about 30-50 baat per child per new uniform. This increase will not make that burden that much more difficult. At the macroeconomic level, the increase in wages represents an increase in spending for a large number of the population, and that increases the aggregate demand for goods and services since most of that money will be spent somewhere. And the only way to grow an economy is to generate an increase in aggregate demand. Of course the increase in wages might slightly reduce the profits of the business owners, but many of them do not spend their money but instead send their capital offshore or invest that capital where the money has very low velocity and thus does little to grow the economy. But of course you are always welcome to continue to drink the American branded Kool-Aid and believe that giving tax breaks to wealthy people and reducing wages stimulates an economy. Heck you can go ahead and believe that entrepreneurs create jobs so go out and give them tax breaks too. But of course none of that does anything for an economy other than concentrating wealth in the hands a few and inevitably leads back to a no-feudalism.

[Phatcharanan]

I was just doing some number crunching.. allowing for approx. 300 baht per uniform, the 1.3 billion the govt is spending would probably buy every kid in Thailand a uniform. and we know that's not happening.. where does all the money go? ohhh yeah.. forgot.. TIT..

And how many students did you use in your calculations?

[rubl]

^35

As initially the government was talking about needing 11+ million tablet PCs to give one to all schoolkids/students, we need at least 3.3 billion Baht. Mind you the budget of the Ministry of Education is the single largest budget within the national budget. For 2012/2013 about 425 billion or close to 19%. The importance of this particular budget is clear when you compare it with the barely 400 billion for price pledging

[hgma]

minimum wage up---------why not increasing all prices ....

Even if its made in rural China.

[waza]

Helllo, what does it take before the reds realise that this is just more evidence that the PTP have a policy of robbing the poor to pay the rich. The tablet PC scam paid for by eliminating the uniform subsidy, the rice scam paid for by Thai tax payers, the 2.2 trillion baht loan paid for by Thai tax payers and their children and their children's children, the minimum wage paid by the tax payer through reduced company tax not to mention the first car scam, the flood mitigation budget scam, the dead redshirt compensation ect ect ect.

In the end the Thaksin elite get richer the cabinet of millionaire become billionaires, redshirt bosses get money and position, and the middle class and rural Thais pick up the bill.

Red democracy in action.

Edited April 18, 2013 by waza

[jackr]

I think the moral is, home teach or plonk a book in front of them... lets face it, anything is better than the alternative.

[billd766]

My son is 8 and 9 in Augustand his uniforms are

Monday white shirt, blue shorts, white socks and black plimsolls

Tuesday the same except the shirt has to have scout badges plus cap and neckerchief

Wednesday blue tracksuit and white trainers

Thursday same as Monday

Friday like Monday but a different shirt

He has outgrown all his white shirts so I will need 3 plus 2 spares 875 baht on last years prices

Aonther flowery shirt plus a spare for Fridays 225

Only 3 pairs of shorts as some still fit him 600

Another track suit 350

More plimsolls and trainers plus another school bag 350 plus about 250 for the bag

More socks 250 for 10 pair of socks

Not much change out of 3,000 baht.

The thing that I can never understand is that if you send a boy and a girl to the same school in clean ironed clothes the girls come back much the same way and boys come home and you almost need to take a flamethrower to get the crud off their shirt collars and socks.

I scrub his shirts and socks with dirt remover, soak them overnight chuck them in the washing machine and after about 3 months I usually throw the socks away but the shirts still have an unremovable mark of grimy child on the collars.

I suspect that I was much the same as a schoolboy.

Edited April 19, 2013 by billd766

[waza]

My son is 8 and 9 in Augustand his uniforms are

Monday white shirt, blue shorts, white socks and black plimsolls

Tuesday the same except the shirt has to have scout badges plus cap and neckerchief

Wednesday blue tracksuit and white trainers

Thursday same as Monday

Friday like Monday but a different shirt

He has outgrown all his white shirts so I will need 3 plus 2 spares 875 baht on last years prices

Aonther flowery shirt plus a spare for Fridays 225

Only 3 pairs of shorts as some still fit him 600

Another track suit 350

More plimsolls and trainers plus another school bag 350 plus about 250 for the bag

More socks 250 for 10 pair of socks

Not much change out of 3,000 baht.

The thing that I can never understand is that if you send a boy and a girl to the same school in clean ironed clothes the girls come back much the same way and boys come home and you almost need to take a flamethrower to get the crud off their shirt collars and socks.

I scrub his shirts and socks with dirt remover, soak them overnight chuck them in the washing machine and after about 3 months I usually throw the socks away but the shirts still have an unremovable mark of grimy child on the collars.

I suspect that I was much the same as a schoolboy.

I wonder if an Indian tailor can do it cheaper and faster?

[hellodolly]

The only point of school uniforms is for the businesses to make money, isn't it? In any company you work for uniforms are provided by the employer. So shouldn't schools provide uniforms free of charge also?

Not in Thailand do most companies issue free uniforms. In the Army a deduction each month is taken from their wages. The police have to pay for their own uniforms, guns and motorbikes. The local 'council' workers who help ou on road blocks at Songkran or New Year or are used as local security if there is a big party have to buy their own uniforms. From what I have heard most big companies do as the army, deduct money from the monthly salary until the cost is returned.

I personally agree with school uniforms. Not only does it identify what school they go to but it prevents some from wearing designer clothes and others dressed in rags which could cause all sorts of problems.

I do agree that name tags would be a more sensible approach than the embroidered names. This would make it easier for clothes to be handed down to siblings of the family or other families children. We have just had to throw away 4 good white shirts and one blue shirt because this year the daughter goes to high school, (so has to have a different style white shirt and black instead of blue skirts) and it is impossible to remove the old name without destroying the blouses. I am happy to say the skirts have been given to other children.

The down side of children having to wear a uniform is the poorer families (like many in our village) can only affordto buy one blouse and one skirt so have to be cleaned everyday. Then there is the regulation black shoes, tracksuit bottom for sports days, plimsolls, socks and a few other things they have to purchase.

It is not cheap dressing a child for school.

It has been many years and I can not recall all the details. But a study of wearing uniforms in public schools I believe it was Toronto found them to be beneficial. I believe it improved the school spirit which was reflected in the grades and to some degree cut down on the bulling. Been about ten years give or take since I read the report and have no idea if any thing was ever done with it as I was living in British Columbia at the time.

Maybe some one here from Toronto knows some thing on the subject. Like I say I think it was Toronto.

[hellodolly]

To the best of my understanding there are many children in the poor villages not going to school because the parents can not afford uniforms. It is all they can do to feed them.

I suppose some of them can get away with it because the Government has decided they don't need electricity in those schools. I wonder when they will be delivered their tablets?

[Pimay1]

To the best of my understanding there are many children in the poor villages not going to school because the parents can not afford uniforms. It is all they can do to feed them.

I suppose some of them can get away with it because the Government has decided they don't need electricity in those schools. I wonder when they will be delivered their tablets?

A friend of mine from Italy teaches at a school outside of Udon. Dirt floors and no electricity. I doubt if they will receive tablets.

[Thai at Heart]

My son is 8 and 9 in Augustand his uniforms are

Monday white shirt, blue shorts, white socks and black plimsolls

Tuesday the same except the shirt has to have scout badges plus cap and neckerchief

Wednesday blue tracksuit and white trainers

Thursday same as Monday

Friday like Monday but a different shirt

He has outgrown all his white shirts so I will need 3 plus 2 spares 875 baht on last years prices

Aonther flowery shirt plus a spare for Fridays 225

Only 3 pairs of shorts as some still fit him 600

Another track suit 350

More plimsolls and trainers plus another school bag 350 plus about 250 for the bag

More socks 250 for 10 pair of socks

Not much change out of 3,000 baht.

The thing that I can never understand is that if you send a boy and a girl to the same school in clean ironed clothes the girls come back much the same way and boys come home and you almost need to take a flamethrower to get the crud off their shirt collars and socks.

I scrub his shirts and socks with dirt remover, soak them overnight chuck them in the washing machine and after about 3 months I usually throw the socks away but the shirts still have an unremovable mark of grimy child on the collars.

I suspect that I was much the same as a schoolboy.

The socks must be the worst in the world.

They appear to be able to create holes in them, whilst in the drawer. Why white socks, I have no idea.

I think the teachers see it as a way to keep the floor clean to have hundreds of kids walking around in socks all the time.

[Thakkar]

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

1

This is a gross misunderstanding of the affects of minimum wage. Most economists will tell you that mandating a living wage for workers in the lowest rung is of benefit to the economy as a whole. Big employers the world over fight against increases in minimum wage as a way to extract tax concessions for themselves in return.

2

In Thailand's case, this minimum wage has, for the most part, been offset by tax breaks for businesses and high income earners.

T

[harrry]

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

1

This is a gross misunderstanding of the affects of minimum wage. Most economists will tell you that mandating a living wage for workers in the lowest rung is of benefit to the economy as a whole. Big employers the world over fight against increases in minimum wage as a way to extract tax concessions for themselves in return.

2

In Thailand's case, this minimum wage has, for the most part, been offset by tax breaks for businesses and high income earners.

T

6 days a week my Brother in Law leaves home at 2.30 am to perform his business with the market getting fresh good quality meat and selling it to market customers and restaurants a business he built up over the last 20 years or so.. He gets home round 10am and still has a little work to do. A lad working for him was getting 5000 baht a month and now is getting 9000. The meat he sells has increased in cost considerably to him but he now has trouble selling at the same price as before as no one has money.

He used to gross a fair income. I guess nearly 35000 a month in a good time. He now is getting less than 20000 after he has paid his worker.

Anyone who can tell me that the 300baht is a benefit to all must be joking.

And somehow he has to find the costs of uniforms for his kid and fares to get to school both of which have skyrocketed.

Edited April 19, 2013 by harrry

[Robby nz]

I wonder just how many actually work where they have got the wage rise that is supposed to cover all the price increases.

I live in a small town and there must be a very small percentage who are on a minimum wage.

For a start you can cut out all the self employed, like stall holders, taxi and motorcy taxi and took took drivers, self employed shop owners, farmers and many more.

Then there are those who were on a higher wage than 300b before the rise like teachers, govt office workers, doctors , nurses and many more of them also.

I suspect the percentage even country wide would be quite small.

So all those who didn't get the increase and have kids still have to pay for the increase in uniform and other costs.

The Mrs has suggested to the school that the young fella that stays with us goes to that they set up an arrangement where parents can take along uniforms that kids have grown out of and are still serviceable and sell them for a small price or give them to parents who cant afford new uniforms.

We wait to see what comes of it.

[Thakkar]

harrry, on 19 Apr 2013 - 18:01, said:

Thakkar, on 19 Apr 2013 - 17:42, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

1

This is a gross misunderstanding of the affects of minimum wage. Most economists will tell you that mandating a living wage for workers in the lowest rung is of benefit to the economy as a whole. Big employers the world over fight against increases in minimum wage as a way to extract tax concessions for themselves in return.

2

In Thailand's case, this minimum wage has, for the most part, been offset by tax breaks for businesses and high income earners.

T

6 days a week my Brother in Law leaves home at 2.30 am to perform his business with the market getting fresh good quality meat and selling it to market customers and restaurants a business he built up over the last 20 years or so.. He gets home round 10am and still has a little work to do. A lad working for him was getting 5000 baht a month and now is getting 9000. The meat he sells has increased in cost considerably to him but he now has trouble selling at the same price as before as no one has money.

He used to gross a fair income. I guess nearly 35000 a month in a good time. He now is getting less than 20000 after he has paid his worker.

Anyone who can tell me that the 300baht is a benefit to all must be joking.

And somehow he has to find the costs of uniforms for his kid and fares to get to school both of which have skyrocketed.

I never said a living minimum wage was a benefit to ALL. I said it was a benefit to the economy as a whole. Government policy works on the aggregate. It cannot be tailored to fit every citizen.

Debating economics or the affects of government economic policy on the basis of how it affects one's brother in law is not very helpful. I could just as easily have a brother in law, who prior to the minimum wage, was struggling to put food on the table and is now less hard up.

T

[harrry]

harrry, on 19 Apr 2013 - 18:01, said:

Thakkar, on 19 Apr 2013 - 17:42, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

1

This is a gross misunderstanding of the affects of minimum wage. Most economists will tell you that mandating a living wage for workers in the lowest rung is of benefit to the economy as a whole. Big employers the world over fight against increases in minimum wage as a way to extract tax concessions for themselves in return.

2

In Thailand's case, this minimum wage has, for the most part, been offset by tax breaks for businesses and high income earners.

T

6 days a week my Brother in Law leaves home at 2.30 am to perform his business with the market getting fresh good quality meat and selling it to market customers and restaurants a business he built up over the last 20 years or so.. He gets home round 10am and still has a little work to do. A lad working for him was getting 5000 baht a month and now is getting 9000. The meat he sells has increased in cost considerably to him but he now has trouble selling at the same price as before as no one has money.

He used to gross a fair income. I guess nearly 35000 a month in a good time. He now is getting less than 20000 after he has paid his worker.

Anyone who can tell me that the 300baht is a benefit to all must be joking.

And somehow he has to find the costs of uniforms for his kid and fares to get to school both of which have skyrocketed.

I never said a living minimum wage was a benefit to ALL. I said it was a benefit to the economy as a whole. Government policy works on the aggregate. It cannot be tailored to fit every citizen.

Debating economics or the affects of government economic policy on the basis of how it affects one's brother in law is not very helpful. I could just as easily have a brother in law, who prior to the minimum wage, was struggling to put food on the table and is now less hard up.

T

Yes hunger does not happen to people does it.

[Thai at Heart]

harrry, on 19 Apr 2013 - 18:01, said:

Thakkar, on 19 Apr 2013 - 17:42, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

saltandpepper, on 18 Apr 2013 - 08:51, said:

Logical! Increase salary @300 / day makes production costs higher, therefore selling price higher. At the end, the consumer pays for the increased salary, and sadly, the same who got the increased salary has to pay more for the goods. Back to square one.

1

This is a gross misunderstanding of the affects of minimum wage. Most economists will tell you that mandating a living wage for workers in the lowest rung is of benefit to the economy as a whole. Big employers the world over fight against increases in minimum wage as a way to extract tax concessions for themselves in return.

2

In Thailand's case, this minimum wage has, for the most part, been offset by tax breaks for businesses and high income earners.

T

6 days a week my Brother in Law leaves home at 2.30 am to perform his business with the market getting fresh good quality meat and selling it to market customers and restaurants a business he built up over the last 20 years or so.. He gets home round 10am and still has a little work to do. A lad working for him was getting 5000 baht a month and now is getting 9000. The meat he sells has increased in cost considerably to him but he now has trouble selling at the same price as before as no one has money.

He used to gross a fair income. I guess nearly 35000 a month in a good time. He now is getting less than 20000 after he has paid his worker.

Anyone who can tell me that the 300baht is a benefit to all must be joking.

And somehow he has to find the costs of uniforms for his kid and fares to get to school both of which have skyrocketed.

I never said a living minimum wage was a benefit to ALL. I said it was a benefit to the economy as a whole. Government policy works on the aggregate. It cannot be tailored to fit every citizen.

Debating economics or the affects of government economic policy on the basis of how it affects one's brother in law is not very helpful. I could just as easily have a brother in law, who prior to the minimum wage, was struggling to put food on the table and is now less hard up.

T

To continually chase lower pricing at the expense of labour has been proven eventually to break society.

And what have we seen in the last few years? Of course not every SME can pay the minimum to all, Thailand is a developing country.

But, there is apparently zero unemployment. So actually paying more may energise the employment market for people to move around and change jobs. The minimum wage payers win for too long after the 97 crash, now it's payback.

[khaowong1]

My son is 8 and 9 in Augustand his uniforms are

Monday white shirt, blue shorts, white socks and black plimsolls

Tuesday the same except the shirt has to have scout badges plus cap and neckerchief

Wednesday blue tracksuit and white trainers

Thursday same as Monday

Friday like Monday but a different shirt

He has outgrown all his white shirts so I will need 3 plus 2 spares 875 baht on last years prices

Aonther flowery shirt plus a spare for Fridays 225

Only 3 pairs of shorts as some still fit him 600

Another track suit 350

More plimsolls and trainers plus another school bag 350 plus about 250 for the bag

More socks 250 for 10 pair of socks

Not much change out of 3,000 baht.

The thing that I can never understand is that if you send a boy and a girl to the same school in clean ironed clothes the girls come back much the same way and boys come home and you almost need to take a flamethrower to get the crud off their shirt collars and socks.

I scrub his shirts and socks with dirt remover, soak them overnight chuck them in the washing machine and after about 3 months I usually throw the socks away but the shirts still have an unremovable mark of grimy child on the collars.

I suspect that I was much the same as a schoolboy.

Boy have you got that right. I remember putting on a new clothes to start the new year at school, came home after school with 3 buttons missing and a hole in the knees of my jeans. Boy my Mom would hit the roof. I went through shoes like they were made of tissue paper. My Mom swore up and down I did it on purpose, trying to drive them to the poor house. My sisters looked like they just came back from church. Boy's.. don't you love em?

[Thakkar]

It has been many years and I can not recall all the details. But a study of wearing uniforms in public schools I believe it was Toronto found them to be beneficial. I believe it improved the school spirit which was reflected in the grades and to some degree cut down on the bulling. Been about ten years give or take since I read the report and have no idea if any thing was ever done with it as I was living in British Columbia at the time.

Maybe some one here from Toronto knows some thing on the subject. Like I say I think it was Toronto.

Oh boy. Don't get me started on school uniforms.

I've seen some studies on this, including some from Toronto.

As far as I can tell, whatever advantages to be had with school uniforms are, at best tangential. Besides these studies never seem to address the disadvantages of uniforms. Perhaps some do and I'm not aware of them. I'm sure also that it's quite hard to do studies showing a negative in this instance.

My kids go to a school that does not mandate uniforms, and I like that just fine. I have strong opinions on the matter and teachers and administrators have audibly groaned as I corner them in the school hallways whenever there's the slightest whiff of a chance of the school even considering the introduction of uniforms.

Here's my take on the matter:

Uniforms are an unnecessary extra regulation, not a positive contribution to life at, or out of, school.

The debate on uniforms crops up repeatedly. In all that I've read and heard on this topic, I have yet to see articulated what I see as the central consideration when discussing this issue.

It is now universally accepted that learning takes place all the time and everywhere, not just during school hours or at an institution of learning. And yet, that the uniform debate even takes place periodically everywhere shows that this axiom has not been taken to heart.

With uniforms, the unintended, insidious message our children receive is that they can stop learning when they change out of their uniforms. All of us, but children in particular, are in learning mode by default. The slightest possibility that uniforms might disrupt this default mode is strong enough argument to resist the suggestion.

Creativity, innovation, compassion and the ability to communicate well are the qualities required if the next generation is to have any hope of tacking the myriad of critical issues they and their world face. The central goal of education should be to foster these qualities and everything parents and schools do has to hang on these hooks. Requiring uniforms does not hang on any of these hooks and is a distraction from the goals.

As to uniforms fostering a 'sense of belonging':

Any sense of belonging or community spirit worth pursuing needs to be nurtured from a wellspring of deeper values, not from superficialities like clothing. One may argue that uniforms is a good place to start, but I'd say not so, because it imposes conformity and suppresses dissent at the outset. How can that be the foundation of worthwhile community?

I appreciate the practicalities involved in educating hundreds of students in a modern school system and accept that certain rigidities are unavoidable. Let's spare our children any more rigidity than is absolutely necessary.

Sadly, I don't see Thai schools, whether government or private, abandoning uniforms any time soon.

T

[khaowong1]

It has been many years and I can not recall all the details. But a study of wearing uniforms in public schools I believe it was Toronto found them to be beneficial. I believe it improved the school spirit which was reflected in the grades and to some degree cut down on the bulling. Been about ten years give or take since I read the report and have no idea if any thing was ever done with it as I was living in British Columbia at the time.

Maybe some one here from Toronto knows some thing on the subject. Like I say I think it was Toronto.

Oh boy. Don't get me started on school uniforms.

I've seen some studies on this, including some from Toronto.

As far as I can tell, whatever advantages to be had with school uniforms are, at best tangential. Besides these studies never seem to address the disadvantages of uniforms. Perhaps some do and I'm not aware of them. I'm sure also that it's quite hard to do studies showing a negative in this instance.

My kids go to a school that does not mandate uniforms, and I like that just fine. I have strong opinions on the matter and teachers and administrators have audibly groaned as I corner them in the school hallways whenever there's the slightest whiff of a chance of the school even considering the introduction of uniforms.

Here's my take on the matter:

Uniforms are an unnecessary extra regulation, not a positive contribution to life at, or out of, school.

The debate on uniforms crops up repeatedly. In all that I've read and heard on this topic, I have yet to see articulated what I see as the central consideration when discussing this issue.

It is now universally accepted that learning takes place all the time and everywhere, not just during school hours or at an institution of learning. And yet, that the uniform debate even takes place periodically everywhere shows that this axiom has not been taken to heart.

With uniforms, the unintended, insidious message our children receive is that they can stop learning when they change out of their uniforms. All of us, but children in particular, are in learning mode by default. The slightest possibility that uniforms might disrupt this default mode is strong enough argument to resist the suggestion.

Creativity, innovation, compassion and the ability to communicate well are the qualities required if the next generation is to have any hope of tacking the myriad of critical issues they and their world face. The central goal of education should be to foster these qualities and everything parents and schools do has to hang on these hooks. Requiring uniforms does not hang on any of these hooks and is a distraction from the goals.

As to uniforms fostering a 'sense of belonging':

Any sense of belonging or community spirit worth pursuing needs to be nurtured from a wellspring of deeper values, not from superficialities like clothing. One may argue that uniforms is a good place to start, but I'd say not so, because it imposes conformity and suppresses dissent at the outset. How can that be the foundation of worthwhile community?

I appreciate the practicalities involved in educating hundreds of students in a modern school system and accept that certain rigidities are unavoidable. Let's spare our children any more rigidity than is absolutely necessary.

Sadly, I don't see Thai schools, whether government or private, abandoning uniforms any time soon.

T

I agree with you in part. However, I also believe that all wearing the same uniform helps those that are less well off conform. Some parents just can't afford levi's, guess or Diesel jeans for their kids. And I believe that all wearing the same uniform lets those kids with poor parents shine in either a school room or out on the soccer field. When everyone looks alike, you don't shy away from being your self. I know when I was a kid, we didn't have the money to dress like those with wealthy parents. Up until high school, I pretty much hung with kids in my social class, poor working family. When I got to high school, Levi jeans was the pants to wear and I worked after school to buy my own. Only then did I start hanging with a different group. Of course, I was mr. cool, so everyone wanted to hang with me. But I hope you understand what I'm getting at. I'm all for uniforms.

[asiasurfer]

It has been many years and I can not recall all the details. But a study of wearing uniforms in public schools I believe it was Toronto found them to be beneficial. I believe it improved the school spirit which was reflected in the grades and to some degree cut down on the bulling. Been about ten years give or take since I read the report and have no idea if any thing was ever done with it as I was living in British Columbia at the time.

Maybe some one here from Toronto knows some thing on the subject. Like I say I think it was Toronto.

Oh boy. Don't get me started on school uniforms.

I've seen some studies on this, including some from Toronto.

As far as I can tell, whatever advantages to be had with school uniforms are, at best tangential. Besides these studies never seem to address the disadvantages of uniforms. Perhaps some do and I'm not aware of them. I'm sure also that it's quite hard to do studies showing a negative in this instance.

My kids go to a school that does not mandate uniforms, and I like that just fine. I have strong opinions on the matter and teachers and administrators have audibly groaned as I corner them in the school hallways whenever there's the slightest whiff of a chance of the school even considering the introduction of uniforms.

Here's my take on the matter:

Uniforms are an unnecessary extra regulation, not a positive contribution to life at, or out of, school.

The debate on uniforms crops up repeatedly. In all that I've read and heard on this topic, I have yet to see articulated what I see as the central consideration when discussing this issue.

It is now universally accepted that learning takes place all the time and everywhere, not just during school hours or at an institution of learning. And yet, that the uniform debate even takes place periodically everywhere shows that this axiom has not been taken to heart.

With uniforms, the unintended, insidious message our children receive is that they can stop learning when they change out of their uniforms. All of us, but children in particular, are in learning mode by default. The slightest possibility that uniforms might disrupt this default mode is strong enough argument to resist the suggestion.

Creativity, innovation, compassion and the ability to communicate well are the qualities required if the next generation is to have any hope of tacking the myriad of critical issues they and their world face. The central goal of education should be to foster these qualities and everything parents and schools do has to hang on these hooks. Requiring uniforms does not hang on any of these hooks and is a distraction from the goals.

As to uniforms fostering a 'sense of belonging':

Any sense of belonging or community spirit worth pursuing needs to be nurtured from a wellspring of deeper values, not from superficialities like clothing. One may argue that uniforms is a good place to start, but I'd say not so, because it imposes conformity and suppresses dissent at the outset. How can that be the foundation of worthwhile community?

I appreciate the practicalities involved in educating hundreds of students in a modern school system and accept that certain rigidities are unavoidable. Let's spare our children any more rigidity than is absolutely necessary.

Sadly, I don't see Thai schools, whether government or private, abandoning uniforms any time soon.

T

I agree with you in part. However, I also believe that all wearing the same uniform helps those that are less well off conform. Some parents just can't afford levi's, guess or Diesel jeans for their kids. And I believe that all wearing the same uniform lets those kids with poor parents shine in either a school room or out on the soccer field. When everyone looks alike, you don't shy away from being your self. I know when I was a kid, we didn't have the money to dress like those with wealthy parents. Up until high school, I pretty much hung with kids in my social class, poor working family. When I got to high school, Levi jeans was the pants to wear and I worked after school to buy my own. Only then did I start hanging with a different group. Of course, I was mr. cool, so everyone wanted to hang with me. But I hope you understand what I'm getting at. I'm all for uniforms.

I think Thakkar and khaowong have both made some very good points to the subject. I believe in Thailand many parents from poorer backgrounds struggle with the costs of buying uniforms for their kids. I have myself two kids and know how expensive these uniforms / shoes etc... are. In my country we don't use school uniforms any more since many decades now and I think it hasn't done any harm towards the conformity or "togetherness-feeling" within a class.

Of course I remember as well that during my time in school there was some competition going on between pupils wearing branded clothes and trying to be "in". However, I think it cannot be compared with the type of consumerism going on today in Thailand! This craziness is already bread in Thai children before they are going to school. Especially in the cities. I mean, just look at all the advertisement about products of all sorts! For sure Thailand is more materialistic than my country used to be some 20 years ago. I even heard about cases whereas teenagers prostituted themselves just to afford the newest phone or handbag, etc... These youngsters are bound to become the victims of exaggerated consumerism...

But coming back to the school uniforms. I wrote in an earlier post that certain schools should actually help out with the purchase of uniforms. If it was cheap enough for anyone to afford it could partially make sense to make everyone look same; therefore, making poorer students not looking embarrassed...

[PaullyW]

Wow, you know a country is still poor when parents have to "brace" for slightly higher (but still cheap) uniform costs.

[billd766]

My son is 8 and 9 in Augustand his uniforms are

Monday white shirt, blue shorts, white socks and black plimsolls

Tuesday the same except the shirt has to have scout badges plus cap and neckerchief

Wednesday blue tracksuit and white trainers

Thursday same as Monday

Friday like Monday but a different shirt

He has outgrown all his white shirts so I will need 3 plus 2 spares 875 baht on last years prices

Aonther flowery shirt plus a spare for Fridays 225

Only 3 pairs of shorts as some still fit him 600

Another track suit 350

More plimsolls and trainers plus another school bag 350 plus about 250 for the bag

More socks 250 for 10 pair of socks

Not much change out of 3,000 baht.

The thing that I can never understand is that if you send a boy and a girl to the same school in clean ironed clothes the girls come back much the same way and boys come home and you almost need to take a flamethrower to get the crud off their shirt collars and socks.

I scrub his shirts and socks with dirt remover, soak them overnight chuck them in the washing machine and after about 3 months I usually throw the socks away but the shirts still have an unremovable mark of grimy child on the collars.

I suspect that I was much the same as a schoolboy.

Boy have you got that right. I remember putting on a new clothes to start the new year at school, came home after school with 3 buttons missing and a hole in the knees of my jeans. Boy my Mom would hit the roof. I went through shoes like they were made of tissue paper. My Mom swore up and down I did it on purpose, trying to drive them to the poor house. My sisters looked like they just came back from church. Boy's.. don't you love em?

What are little boys made of? What are little boys made of? Slugs and snails And puppy-dogs' tails, That's what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice And everything nice, That's what little girls are made of. And I love my son to pieces except on Tuesday and Friday nights when I scrub his shirts and socks clean and on the days when he takes his shoes off and i see his toes through his socks. I wouldn't EVER want to be without him though.

What I didn't put in my original post as it is a little off topic is that his school is 65 km away and he leaves home around 6.15 am and gets back about 5.30 pm. The minibus from door to school and back is costing 2,000 baht a month for 10 months of the year.

Edited April 20, 2013 by billd766

[hellodolly]

To the best of my understanding there are many children in the poor villages not going to school because the parents can not afford uniforms. It is all they can do to feed them.

I suppose some of them can get away with it because the Government has decided they don't need electricity in those schools. I wonder when they will be delivered their tablets?

A friend of mine from Italy teaches at a school outside of Udon. Dirt floors and no electricity. I doubt if they will receive tablets.

What are you suggesting the PTP will not fulfill there populist promises?

How can that be they are such honest upstanding employes of Thaksin.

[TexasRanger]

Most Thai people see their kids as a pension, you have to invest in it.

[hellodolly]

asiasurfer, on 20 Apr 2013 - 09:19, said:

khaowong1, on 20 Apr 2013 - 07:47, said:

Thakkar, on 19 Apr 2013 - 22:23, said:

hellodolly, on 19 Apr 2013 - 15:35, said:

It has been many years and I can not recall all the details. But a study of wearing uniforms in public schools I believe it was Toronto found them to be beneficial. I believe it improved the school spirit which was reflected in the grades and to some degree cut down on the bulling. Been about ten years give or take since I read the report and have no idea if any thing was ever done with it as I was living in British Columbia at the time.

Maybe some one here from Toronto knows some thing on the subject. Like I say I think it was Toronto.

Oh boy. Don't get me started on school uniforms.

I've seen some studies on this, including some from Toronto.

As far as I can tell, whatever advantages to be had with school uniforms are, at best tangential. Besides these studies never seem to address the disadvantages of uniforms. Perhaps some do and I'm not aware of them. I'm sure also that it's quite hard to do studies showing a negative in this instance.

My kids go to a school that does not mandate uniforms, and I like that just fine. I have strong opinions on the matter and teachers and administrators have audibly groaned as I corner them in the school hallways whenever there's the slightest whiff of a chance of the school even considering the introduction of uniforms.

Here's my take on the matter:

Uniforms are an unnecessary extra regulation, not a positive contribution to life at, or out of, school.

The debate on uniforms crops up repeatedly. In all that I've read and heard on this topic, I have yet to see articulated what I see as the central consideration when discussing this issue.

It is now universally accepted that learning takes place all the time and everywhere, not just during school hours or at an institution of learning. And yet, that the uniform debate even takes place periodically everywhere shows that this axiom has not been taken to heart.

With uniforms, the unintended, insidious message our children receive is that they can stop learning when they change out of their uniforms. All of us, but children in particular, are in learning mode by default. The slightest possibility that uniforms might disrupt this default mode is strong enough argument to resist the suggestion.

Creativity, innovation, compassion and the ability to communicate well are the qualities required if the next generation is to have any hope of tacking the myriad of critical issues they and their world face. The central goal of education should be to foster these qualities and everything parents and schools do has to hang on these hooks. Requiring uniforms does not hang on any of these hooks and is a distraction from the goals.

As to uniforms fostering a 'sense of belonging':

Any sense of belonging or community spirit worth pursuing needs to be nurtured from a wellspring of deeper values, not from superficialities like clothing. One may argue that uniforms is a good place to start, but I'd say not so, because it imposes conformity and suppresses dissent at the outset. How can that be the foundation of worthwhile community?

I appreciate the practicalities involved in educating hundreds of students in a modern school system and accept that certain rigidities are unavoidable. Let's spare our children any more rigidity than is absolutely necessary.

Sadly, I don't see Thai schools, whether government or private, abandoning uniforms any time soon.

T

I agree with you in part. However, I also believe that all wearing the same uniform helps those that are less well off conform. Some parents just can't afford levi's, guess or Diesel jeans for their kids. And I believe that all wearing the same uniform lets those kids with poor parents shine in either a school room or out on the soccer field. When everyone looks alike, you don't shy away from being your self. I know when I was a kid, we didn't have the money to dress like those with wealthy parents. Up until high school, I pretty much hung with kids in my social class, poor working family. When I got to high school, Levi jeans was the pants to wear and I worked after school to buy my own. Only then did I start hanging with a different group. Of course, I was mr. cool, so everyone wanted to hang with me. But I hope you understand what I'm getting at. I'm all for uniforms.

I think Thakkar and khaowong have both made some very good points to the subject. I believe in Thailand many parents from poorer backgrounds struggle with the costs of buying uniforms for their kids. I have myself two kids and know how expensive these uniforms / shoes etc... are. In my country we don't use school uniforms any more since many decades now and I think it hasn't done any harm towards the conformity or "togetherness-feeling" within a class.

Of course I remember as well that during my time in school there was some competition going on between pupils wearing branded clothes and trying to be "in". However, I think it cannot be compared with the type of consumerism going on today in Thailand! This craziness is already bread in Thai children before they are going to school. Especially in the cities. I mean, just look at all the advertisement about products of all sorts! For sure Thailand is more materialistic than my country used to be some 20 years ago. I even heard about cases whereas teenagers prostituted themselves just to afford the newest phone or handbag, etc... These youngsters are bound to become the victims of exaggerated consumerism...

But coming back to the school uniforms. I wrote in an earlier post that certain schools should actually help out with the purchase of uniforms. If it was cheap enough for anyone to afford it could partially make sense to make everyone look same; therefore, making poorer students not looking embarrassed...

Well as I stated earlier I can not remember the details just that uniforms were found to have definite advantages. Reading over some of the posts takes me back to when I was in in a Catholic school we had to wear uniforms and clothing was not an issue. But when I went to Public schooling it was an issue and definatly helped to form cliques. There by causing a great deal of shall we say snobbery.

When I was in the schools with uniforms the idea of keeping up and ahead of the Jones was never considered. That was an idea fostered in my senior high school years. I remember to this day vividly the coat you had to have to be a somebody. That is not what schools are all about they are for education.

I remember one of the really hip in crowd boys. At are 40 year reunion he stood at the door shaking every ones hand no matter who they had been or where they had been. He was friendly with all. He had matured a long way from the day's when he was one of the in people and a good athlete also. He was just a regular guy. I do know that he was wealthy but you would never know it by his clothes or the people he spoke with. He was just one of the class now.

Edited April 20, 2013 by hellodolly