[Gangnam Perspective] The School Uniform in the Closet

When my older son entered middle school, we went to get his school uniform. The jacket alone cost 150,000 won. Once we added the rest of the set, the total easily exceeded 300,000 won. Still, most of the parents in the shop wore similar expressions. It was a bit expensive, but everyone seemed to share the excitement and anticipation of buying their child’s first school uniform. I had no idea then that the jacket would sit in the closet until graduation day.
School uniforms in Korea date back to 1886, when Ewha Haktang dressed its female students in bright red skirts. During the Japanese colonial period, the Japanese-style gakuran (traditional Japanese boys’ school uniform jacket) took over. Uniforms disappeared once in 1983 with the introduction of a free-dress policy, then returned in 1985. From the 1990s, they began to change. Brands such as Smart School Uniforms, Elite School Uniforms, and IVY Club started marketing uniforms using the most popular idols of the time. That was when uniforms shifted from being mere "official attire" to becoming "fashion items for teenagers."
The problem is that once uniforms became fashion, their prices followed fashion trends too. Most schools now require both formal suit-style uniforms and everyday uniforms. But students spend the day sitting in class, running around, and eating school lunch. It is not easy to do all that in a white dress shirt and a formal jacket. The jacket usually hangs on the back of a classroom chair or sits in a locker. Aside from a few occasions such as entrance ceremonies, graduation, and school events, the number of days that expensive jacket is actually worn can be counted on one hand.
The government is now pushing a policy to phase out these formal jacket-style uniforms. It is encouraging schools to switch to everyday uniforms and PE uniforms instead of costly suit jackets, and says it will provide cash and vouchers to make school uniforms effectively free. Authorities have also pledged to crack down on collusion. On paper, the policy direction looks flawless. The idea is to get rid of clothes that are expensive, uncomfortable, and rarely worn, and to spend money on what students actually wear. It is only natural that parents welcome this. If they can buy both everyday uniforms and PE uniforms within the subsidy limit, the real burden on household budgets will fall. Getting rid of 300,000-won uniforms will not lower the quality of education.
However, even a well-intentioned policy can produce strange outcomes if it is carried out carelessly. We first need to think about what will replace the formal jacket once it disappears. Many will remember the time when The North Face padded jackets spread like de facto uniforms and the term "spine breaker" was coined.
The complaints from the school-uniform industry are not entirely without merit. Companies that forecast annual demand and secure fabric and inventory in advance could suddenly be left holding unsold stock. Even if the policy changes overnight, stores that have been in business for decades cannot simply shut down the next day. The demand for at least a grace period is hardly unreasonable.
The backlash from schools with long traditions is also understandable. Uniform designs that have been used for decades are part of a school’s identity. In some cases, donations from alumni who feel attached to their old uniforms make a real contribution to school finances. When you dismantle a tradition, there should be a reason strong enough to justify it.
School uniforms were originally meant to reduce discrimination based on family income and to protect students. As long as that function is preserved, changing the form of the uniform itself is not the issue. There is no need to rush. Circumstances differ from school to school and region to region, and stakeholders’ views are diverse. It is not too late to listen carefully, examine the details thoroughly, and then make changes. Getting the policy direction right and deciding how to implement it are two completely different matters. If a good idea is pushed too quickly and money starts leaking out in unexpected ways, the ones who ultimately pay the price will again be parents and students.
There is no reason to oppose getting rid of jackets that children find uncomfortable to wear. But we must avoid repeating the mistakes of 40 years ago or creating unintended victims in the rush to move fast. While keeping the goals of student convenience and easing parents’ financial burden, the government also needs a phased transition that reflects industry realities, along with safeguards to prevent overheated spending on personal clothes.
ahnman@fnnews.com Reporter