School uniforms save money

The argument

The argument that school uniforms should be mandatory is made here on grounds of household cost, and it works in two parts: what uniforms remove, and what they cost by comparison. What they remove is the fashion cycle. When students are permitted to wear what they like to school, they become subject to the latest trends, and parents are forced to keep up — buying their children current clothes or risking that the child is teased for looking outdated. The expense is not driven by need but by the pace at which trends change, which is why it recurs. Clothes that still fit and are undamaged nonetheless have to be replaced, and the parent has no way to opt out without the child bearing the consequence. Uniforms break that cycle. Instead of buying new clothes with each incoming trend, parents replace the uniform only when a child physically grows out of it or it becomes ripped or damaged beyond repair. Replacement is triggered by wear and by growth — things that would require new clothes in any case — rather than by what other children are wearing. Over the course of a child's school life, this saves a parent a large sum. The second part of the argument removes the obvious objection, which is that uniforms are an extra purchase on top of ordinary clothes. Uniforms are also cheaper than normal street clothes: a UK study found the average school uniform costs parents £88.05, while the average non-school outfit sets them back £113. So the clothing a child wears to school costs less than a single outfit that would otherwise be worn in its place. Cheaper per item and replaced far less often, uniforms lower the clothing bill on both counts. Because school uniforms save money, the argument concludes, they should be mandatory.

Context

School uniforms eliminate the need to keep up with fashion. Expensive clothing fads come and go, especially for students. All students wearing the same uniform all year round saves money.

Premises

Counter-arguments

How can anyone argue that forcing parents to spend money on a set of clothes the child can only wear at school is cost-effective? While uniforms may be cheaper than non-uniform outfits, they are also an entirely unnecessary and additional expense. Families don't buy uniforms instead of street clothes (because the child needs something to wear when it is isn't at school), they buy them as well as street clothes. In this respect, no matter how cheap uniforms are, they are still an additional expense. Not only that people that suffer from poverty might not be able to afford multiple uniforms. Why multiple? You can't be having one and keep washing it waiting for it to dry before the next day. The Guardian reported that 95% of parents from low-income families had difficulty meeting school-related cost. The additional expense of uniforms was a huge component of these school-related costs.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] School uniforms are an additional expense.