Figure 1.--

A French Canadian reader has provided us an assessment of the impact of compulsory education. "My main idea is that short pants, suspenders and long stockings was an universal symbol of compulsory education." Here is our reader's assessment:

Children's Clothing

Along with short pants, suspenders and long stockings already existed bib pants, overall and Levi's. All those kids wearing short pants wore also overall for playing or working. But the reverse was not true. Those " junk matters" were never worn by those kids leaving school after 2 or 3 years. With compulsory education, short pants with long stockings appeared more convenient, more practical for those kids having to stay seated the day long than having to wear heavy suits really not fitting the new status of children. In the 1900, any progressive nation understood clearly that education was a step toward progress and that "writing, reading and rythmetic" were the key for individual success. It is true that at first some material like broadcloth or those leather or suede lederhosen were stiff and not too well adjusted . But they were intended to be used for many years with a system of adjustment like suspenders.

Modern View

Today, this system of suspenders , short pants and long stockings can appear obsolete, baroque and futile but at that time, they were universally accepted by children and parents. They were identified with the schoolboy or schoolgirl status and nobody discussed about that. It was so true that physicians insist on the use of waists with double garters on each side as more convenient than rubber bands more dangerous for blood vessels in the legs even if more practical for kids. More, nobody seemed to object short pants or promoting long pants between 1900 and 1945. From our point of view of today, those garments seems to have been created as a repression tool. Quite the reverse, middle-class parents found their kids dressed like that very nice and looking as children. more. A kid dressed like that was the promise of a better life.

Upper-Class Influence

In the 19th century, kids wore long pants. Why parents did not continue with this ? Thorsten Veblen in his "theory of the leasure class" had an answer to this. Everything worn by high class is copied by lower class. There were some fancies on kids trousers but not enough to distinguish them from lower-class status children . Short pants, Fauntelroy or kilts were diverses attempts from the high-class to characterized wealty children. Only short pants and long stockings remained as esthetic and practical dress. In that sense, high class dictates what kind of dress will be the regular clothing for schoolboys. Compulsory Education became a sign of the ascending middle class. For me, the use of short pants was a real symbol of a new social class in maintening some attributes of little kids with some practical aspects like rolling long stockings when needed without having to change suits when wanting to play or inside home. This mixing of different social classes was a real progress in the western world and the shape of a kid in short pants, suspenders and long stockings was a key symbol of an educated middle-class distinct from the working-class. When leaving school, the kids having to work wore long pants at early age like 8 or 9 year-old. I suspect that those kids and their parents were laughing at those "sissy" kids wearing childish suits because they were resentful against the fact they were excluded from this way to success. Many kids from lower-class who remained at shool had to suffer greatly in staying longer at school because they felt it was a betrayal to their own social class. Just imagine what it was to be looked "sissy" by those kids with whom he payed on the streets before entering school. Pressures to conformity were heavy and many kids were unable to persevere any longer at school than the sixth grade. The worst is that those kids were labelled "underachievers" by the school board while they fought to stay at school. if many stayed longer, it was because boarding schools created a more wealthy climate for study. So, success implied a kind of dressing rules. It is so true that kids 18 year old in the 1910 and even in 1940 were always in short pants and long stockings.

Compulsory Education

With the advent of the WWII and after, school became open to every classes of society and lower class suits like long pants became a norm for younger kids safe in certain kind of school like in UK where the traditions were longer to disappear. The main factor in this kind of revolution is the fact that new light materials were offered on the market at lower price. Jeans is a good example. Unlike long stockings which were prone to be torn easily, jeans were resistant and easy to wear because lighter in weight. No use of suspenders: belts in elastic materials became a must . Children, boys first, then girls, chose long pants for having peace of mind without having to be teased . Even if in Europe , clothing is always a symbol of status, mainly in France, italy and Spain, it is no longer a value in those prominent protestant countries were symbol of success is more in a banking account, a "home" or a car. On a classroom picture, it is hard on today to make the difference between an affluent or a poor kid. There is a leveling of such differences. But there is a price to pay for that. From my point of view, never kids were so ridiculous than on today with their baggy pants, boots like sneakers and shapeless T-shirt. Kids feels comfortable. Yes. But like in the Victorian Era, they are vanishing under their "cool" suits in such a way that nobody will give attention to them. Yes, it is a kind of repression like it was a century ago. Maybe it is the best way to protect them against any predators. It is like forbidding to sow flowers seeds because some people could cut them !!!

Michel Coron

Created: 3:55 AM 7/2/2005
Last updated: 3:55 AM 7/2/2005