Nkosikhulule Nyembezi
CAPE TOWN - In its early days, most adults described regular school attendance in full uniform as a sure path to the educational superhighway.
The metaphor has fallen obsolete, but it captures an important truth. Highways have rules — speed limits; no drinking and driving — because a free-for-all would be deadly.
The damage caused by reckless or malicious use of school uniform supply agreements network to force parents to pay inflated prices for school uniforms is not as visible to passing traffic as a road accident, but there is no doubting the problem.
That is why the Competition Tribunal’s ruling that schools can no longer force parents to buy their children’s school uniform at a specific supplier can be hailed a considerable victory for poor parents, child-headed households, and small businesses at a time when the country is battling HIV/Aids, TB and malaria epidemic as well as the coronavirus pandemic.
In the latest instalment announced on November 22, the tribunal said a recent consent agreement between uniform supplier McCullagh & Bothwell and the Competition Commission formed part of efforts to increase competition, and ensure cheaper prices in the school uniforms market.
Users of school uniforms purchased through these supply agreements number around millions, so it matters to the whole country if they are expensive because of uncompetitive behaviour.
The background set out in a statement by the tribunal states that before 2015, the commission received numerous complaints relating to the high cost of school uniform items and exclusive agreements preventing suppliers from entering the market.
Responding to numerous complaints from parents and organisations fighting for universal access to social grants and no-fee schools such as the Black Sash and Equal Education, the commission undertook various advocacy initiatives to address these concerns which were already accounting for a high number of individual and household indebtedness as reflected in the blacklisted names in the credit bureaus and debt counselling services.
The formal process started in 2017, when the commission launched an investigation into several schools, school uniform manufacturers and suppliers for possible contraventions of the Competition Act, based on evidence received from human rights organisations, parents, and school uniform suppliers.
The investigation concluded that exclusive supply agreements may substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market by excluding potential and existing school uniform suppliers from entering into or growing in the relevant market.
That effect spreads across schools in the country. The breadth of their realm was illustrated when a significant number of parents became over indebted due to South Africa’s rocketing unemployment numbers.
For many faced with shrinking household income, that was a major inconvenience, as there are places where having the correct full school uniform is synonymous with the right of access to quality education. Such power cannot be trusted to a negligent industry.
No wonder some parents take out loans, getting into debt so that their child can conform to the school’s wishes, which always include having a sole supplier agreement with a costly uniform supplier company, leaving them with no other option. Even now, the prohibitive cost of uniforms at certain schools has forced parents to consider other options for their children.
I have always found the justification that uniforms demolish class distinctions between pupils to be disingenuous.
When I’ve advocated for responsible ways to combat poverty and universal access to education, I have reflected on many cases from people seeking help from community advice offices and debt counsellors who cite costly uniforms as one of the educational barriers they faced.
Even the National Credit Regulator reflects the hardship in its regular Credit Bureau Monitor reports, containing information on the increasing number of consumers with impaired records.
But uniforms prevent bullying, we are told — though for many studies claiming this, there is an emerging body of evidence that concludes that school uniforms have no direct negative effect on behaviour, and some have argued they can even provoke bullying.
As for uniforms somehow being a facilitator of better teaching, there is piling evidence that so much time is devoted to non-compliance checks that it eats into learning time.
I continue to advocate for the liberation of school uniforms rules ever since becoming aware of the associated hardships.
I agree with those who argue that current uniform policies in most public and private policies reinforce gender and racial divisions as well as class ones, as racist hairstyle policies, sexist skirt rules, the sexual fetishisation of girls’ uniforms, and the discrimination faced by trans and sangoma pupils all illustrate.
We have encountered a fair share of arguments in the Constitutional Court litigation on wearing a nose ring at school and other incidents perceived as contravention to the rules.
The argument that they prepare pupils for the workplace is increasingly redundant. With the accelerated decline of workplace dressing due to the need to work from home during this coronavirus pandemic, there are serious doubts about whether a suit will look as outdated in a decade as hats and briefcases do now.
But, after this announcement by the competition authorities, I have increased faith in a proper conversation about uniforms taking place, so much change is taking place around us.
Other countries seem to manage perfectly well without school uniforms, but in South Africa there’s a knee-jerk response when you tout a path to diversity.
Ultimately, uniforms are a form of social control and conformity in an education system that already doesn’t focus enough on the individual. Children should be encouraged to express themselves, and if they are exposed to different ways of dressing from an early age, they are less likely to tease other children for not being “fashionable”.
The era of utopian romance around school uniforms, when claims that they were connecting people for the betterment of humanity were prevalent, is long past.
We view the giants of the sector as oligopolists, paying too little tax, milking profits, squeezing out competition and neglecting the social cost of their business model.
Producers of ingredients to make bread are not free to artificially increase their prices. Tobacco advertising is restricted. When, in the past, an industry’s product has been shown to cause pollution or ill health, the government has stepped in.
That process is catching up with uniform suppliers. That challenge is not some way off, as the oligarch suppliers’ dominance will not last forever. Its power was amassed in an era when the toxicity of its non competitive business practice was hidden from view. Thankfully, that era is drawing to a close.
* Nyembezi is a policy analyst and human rights activist