There has been a lot of hullaballoo over the banning of school trousers for girls in schools, which honestly has left me gobsmacked. How we have found ourselves consumed by this issue is another moot point for another day, but certainly it is embarrassing that we are in this day and age considering whether girls should be allowed to wear pants to school – right in the middle of the 21st century!
We must be embarrassed with ourselves if this is what we believe will take this country forward and build a future that sees a prosperous Eswatini, because an education system preparing children for the future should be willing to question the habits it has inherited from the past.
This controversy over girls wearing trousers to school suggests that we still have some distance to travel.
We should be discussing how to produce confident, capable young people who can think critically, challenge inequality and contribute meaningfully to society. Instead, we are spending time defending a restriction on what girls may wear to attend lessons.
What educational purpose does this ban serve? How does requiring a girl to wear a skirt improve her understanding of mathematics, strengthen her reading or prepare her for employment?
The ministry’s position, reported as grounded in Circular 10 of 2017, requires girls to wear skirts or tunics on ordinary school days while allowing tracksuits for sporting activities. Some schools’ efforts to introduce trousers as an alternative have brought the restriction back into public debate.
And we are now divided as to whether this should be implemented or not, and it seems that this is being viewed, unashamedly, as a conversation worth having! It is ludicrous and an embarrassment, if you ask me.
For me, that distinction of girls being allowed to wear tracksuits for sporting activities really deserves scrutiny. If girls can wear tracksuits for school sport, what makes trousers unacceptable in a classroom? A change of activity cannot, by itself, explain why clothing covering the same parts of the body suddenly becomes inappropriate.
Schools can maintain reasonable standards of dress while offering practical choices and I should know this, because I was privileged to go through my high school where there was little focus on the colour of the shoe and pants we boys wore, so long as there was a blue shirt. It is obvious that trousers in the prescribed school colours can be neat, affordable and entirely consistent with a recognisable uniform. Allowing that option need not threaten discipline, or God knows what else!
Those defending the policy deserve a hearing. The truth is that uniforms can encourage belonging, reduce visible differences in household income and simplify daily decisions for families. Headteachers also need clear rules they can administer fairly.
But none of those arguments explains why girls must be denied trousers. A choice between approved skirts and approved trousers can preserve a school’s identity while respecting learners’ comfort and dignity. Supporters of the restriction should explain the harm they believe that choice would cause.
The constitutional question makes that explanation more urgent. Section 20 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and protection against discrimination, including on grounds of gender.
Section 28 recognises women’s right to equal treatment with men. In my view, a policy assigning trousers to boys while denying girls the same practical option sits uneasily with those commitments.
Therefore, the Education and Training Minister Owen Nxumalo is right to suggest that this policy should be reviewed, and this is hugely welcome. The minister’s views show an appreciation and understanding of why this should be reconsidered, despite that his ministry is the one that is seeking to fully implement this policy.
The minister is reported to have responded to this concern while at William Pitcher Teacher Training College, where he met management and the student representative council.
Nxumalo said the Attorney General had advised that the directive might be inconsistent with the Constitution.
“We have to review the policy because, as per Constitution, you cannot dictate to people on how they should dress,” said the minister, who added that policies introduced by government institutions could not supersede the Constitution.
Here, you have to admit that this is a ‘handsome’ point by the minister, for it simply demonstrates that he is handling this conversation maturely and without emotion.
It is obvious that if this is in black and white, then a serious review with a clear outcome and timetable should be urgently considered, because, honestly, saying that a policy has existed since 2017 does not establish that it remains fair or useful.
Government’s responsibility includes recognising when its own rules need to change. An old circular cannot substitute for a convincing educational justification.
There is also a wider contradiction here. Curriculum reform asks schools to embrace new approaches, develop independent thinkers and prepare learners for a changing world.
Those ambitions require preparation, trained teachers, appropriate materials and honest engagement with the people expected to deliver them. They also require an institutional willingness to reconsider established ideas.
A ministry cannot credibly encourage critical thinking while treating questions about an inherited dress rule as evidence of indiscipline – or whatever other reasons for it.
Girls learn from the way institutions exercise power over them. When schools give boys a practical clothing option that girls cannot choose, they risk reinforcing the idea that girls’ freedom should be narrower and their appearance more closely controlled.
That message undermines efforts to build equality.
We want girls to enter workplaces, public life and leadership with confidence in their abilities. Their school experience should help them develop that confidence through participation, responsibility and the knowledge that their views deserve consideration.
The debate also exposes a question of priorities. Learners need safe classrooms, effective teaching, support when they struggle and adults they can trust. Authorities should bring at least the same urgency to those needs that they bring to enforcing uniform rules.
Sexual harassment and abuse demand particular attention and I shudder to think what kind of policies the ministry has in its cabinets, while teachers get away with destroying our children’s lives.
Schools need safe reporting channels, prompt investigations, protection against retaliation and meaningful consequences for perpetrators.
Where teachers abuse pupils, disciplinary action and criminal proceedings, where warranted, must follow – and a black book, for that matter.
The responsibility for abuse belongs to the perpetrator. A girl’s clothing never excuses an adult’s exploitation of authority. Any discussion of school dress must keep that principle clear. We should also be willing to examine what uniforms actually achieve. Whether a school requires a uniform or permits ordinary clothing, the central measure should be learners’ access to education and their full participation in it.
Dress rules should support those aims, with attention to cost, weather, mobility, disability and personal dignity.
A sensible review would hear directly from pupils, alongside parents, teachers and school leaders. Girls should be able to explain how uniform requirements affect their daily lives.
Listening to them would itself demonstrate the respect and thoughtful participation that education ought to encourage.
The outcome need not be complicated – retain reasonable uniform standards and allow girls to choose approved trousers, skirts or tunics. Give schools clear guidance and families a practical transition period.
The 2017 restriction should be retired through a proper review. Its age is no reason to preserve it, and its enforcement should never become more important than the children it governs.
We cannot promise girls an equal place in tomorrow’s society while insisting that yesterday’s assumptions determine their choices today.
An education system serious about a brighter future must show that it, too, is capable of learning.
Just as he has got it right dealing with the teachers and their association, and his policy to work with them, it is fair to say that he is maturing like fine wine on this role.
