According to the Oxford Dictionary, definition number one of the
word school, is, simply, a place where children are
educated.
A school is simply a place where children are educated, and that it
is every schools mission to nurture their students into fine
adults with knowledge, intellect, as well as high moral
integrity.
Now, how then does the preservation of the schools image comply
with this mission statement? As far as the students are concerned,
they go to a school to learn, and not to be forced into comforming
to rules on attire. I am questioning the very basis of this
argument that poor attire tarnishes the school's reputation. Is
there really a need for schools to uphold an image to others?
By meeting out standards and expectations on uniform, on hair
length.. the MOE is constantly trying to improve the education
system to nurture the creativity of students. yet they fail to see
that creativity is not something that can be taught, and the only
way to nurture creativity is to provide the environment for it. if
students are not given the basic freedom to exercise creativity in
their dressing.. meeting out standards for hair and attire, hair
must be combed neatly, channels clear, sideburns shaved, etc.. it
is probably going to be hard to see any results.
And even in taiwan, the govt has already moved away from tradition
and abolished rules regarding hair and attire in schools. why cant
sg learn from them?
As an organization a school has and reserves the right to meet out
various rules and expectations for their students. and like in all
other organizations, all members have no choice but to abide by the
rules set in order to remain part of it. However, what I am trying
to say here is my personal opinion, that rules should be set with
the sole purpose of aiding the schools in achieving their mission
of educating and nurturing students, and that no school will become
any less or worse and educational institution if the rules on
attire and hair are abolished.
