No sooner are Christmas decorations down than the Back To School signs are up in shop windows.
With up to two to three weeks before term starts, mailboxes full of flyers of children kitted out in pristine new uniforms are a reminder for many parents that it is January not December that stretches the budget to the maximum.
I am all for school uniform. It looks smart, removes the social implications of clothing and its associated battle for status. It makes sense to have a hardwearing wardrobe that suits all.
Although the "suits all" is questionable as rarely are uniforms stylish or flattering. Perhaps that is the point. Children are at school to learn, think, have fun, make friends and not be in a fashion show.
Despite my own school days, as a parent I am not one for breaking school uniform rules. If you sign up for a school you agree to abide by its rules.
It is why I argued last year in favour of the Hastings college, which booted out long-haired 16-year-old Lucan Battison, who refused to cut his hair despite this being part of the school rules.
Battison took the school and board of trustees to court and won. The judge ruled that the hair rule was too vague and uncertain.
Following this judgment last year it does not seem that there has been a precedent set for students or parents taking their schools to court. There has not been a run on courts of students wanting to wear more jewellery or sport tattoos.
Law firm Beattie Rickman Legal, one of several lawyers that opined on the Battison case, concluded in its analysis that the court has "inherent power to supervise the use of public power to ensure it is used appropriately. Although the public may disagree on whether Lucan should have taken his school to court in these circumstances, the fact that he at least had the right to must not become contentious."
So a school has the legal right to make rules - such as in this instance, the hair rule. School rules remain in accordance with the law - the Education Act 1989 ("Act"), which provides that boards can make rules that they think may be necessary for the control and management of the school.
Principals can, points out Beattie Rickman, suspend a student "if reasonably satisfied that the student's conduct is a dangerous example to others".
What has this got to do with January school uniform lists?
Last week, the Herald on Sunday reported that retailer Postie Plus has launched a cost effective generic school uniform range, Schoolzone, which offers a range of T-shirts, polos, skirts and shorts in school colours, but without school logos. The report quotes Postie chief executive Richard Binns who said parents would be able to buy quality uniforms for less than $50.
This appealed to Papamoa mum Melissa Maurice who said in the report that the new range was a "fantastic option". Two of her four children study at Mount Maunganui College.
Maurice hoped the school would not be too strict and would allow generic items from Postie.
"If I can save $20 on a pair of shorts, that can go towards his school shoes."
Makes sense. Like Maurice, cheaper uniform options appeal to me. Like many Bay parents, my children attend schools where it is stipulated that the uniform must be purchased at specific shops in Tauranga. To my knowledge there are two main shops in the Bay in the uniform business, Active Schoolwear and NZ Uniforms, as well as national chain The Warehouse.
The problem arises that if the uniform business is given to a small number or even one store, a potential price monopoly occurs.
As a compulsive shopper and label lover, I have a penchant for reading labels of clothes, including where they were made, and the fabric make-up of the clothes.
A question every parent should be asking - is this expensive $100 shoe or skirt or jacket from the required uniform shop any different from a more generic item from Postie or the Warehouse?
Yes the uniform suppliers may have the school logo, which I do like as it adds a sense of pride and belonging to a school community, but is the cost of having this logo justified by the inflated prices in the uniform shops. In many cases prices are more than double a generic version.
Just in my informal shopping survey this week, a required white shirt is almost $50, a similar generic version in Postie Plus is $17 or two for $30. A required school shoe on my list is more than $100 but I can get a similar version in the Warehouse for $25.
Yes, like Lucan Battsion's parents, I signed the school contract to abide by uniform rules. The mother in me thinks maybe I should just suck it up, not rock the boat and buy the damn shoes. But the journalist and consumer in me screams no, this is wrong.
For what real difference is there in the Warehouse or Postie cheaper version? In some cases - again noted in my informal survey - the clothing has the same origin, for example, Made in Fiji. Or has the same fabric. I have purchased generic items from Postie and the Warehouse and in wash and wear have not noticed one dot of difference with the more expensive items.
Children grow out of, and dirty, uniform easily. I question the logic and even the morality in having to buy something for five times what I can get it down the road.
The cost of education in terms of books, extra curricular activities, sport and fundraising is already a great burden to many New Zealand families. Schools need to be cognisant of this and prioritise what matters in education.
Is wearing a $20 white shirt from The Warehouse, as opposed to a higher priced designated item, showing conduct that is "a dangerous example to others", or is it a case of public power not being used appropriately?
Parents need to be asking schools - who negotiate with the uniform suppliers - are we getting a fair deal?