Part of education is learning that rules and laws are made for good reasons and need to be adhered to, even if they do not have unanimous support. Education also involves teaching, and apparently parents, that actions have consequences, and choosing to disobey or ignore rules or laws will result in some form of correction or punishment.

Finally, it is vital that school administrators have the power to enforce the rules of the school in a fair and even-handed way. Most fair-minded people would agree with all of the above, and on that basis, it is hard to disagree with CedarBridge Academy's decision to send those students who failed to show up wearing their school blazers back home on Monday.

This is all the more the case when parents and students were advised as long ago as July that as of Monday, the day after the half term holiday, students would be required to wear winter uniforms, including blazers.

They were informed again on October 21 of the requirement. And students at CedarBridge, of all places, should have known more than at any other school of the requirement and the likely consequences because principal Kalmar Richards has made it abundantly clear that she is a stickler for correct uniforms.

Mrs. Richards is right to demand high standards for uniforms for the above reasons. The school has rules for uniforms and they should be upheld. Students who are well turned out tend to have more pride in themselves and in their school.

There are two arguments against the school's decision to send the children home that are worthy of consideration, however. The first is that the blazers, at $65 each, are expensive. That is true and it may be that not every parent can afford to spend that much money, especially if they have more than one child at the school who needs one.

As Chief Education Officer Dr. Joseph Christopher said though, if that was the case, the parents could have raised the problem with the school in advance and, it must be added, could still do so now.

It must also be added, as one parent did to this newspaper yesterday, that parents have had months to buy the blazers and could have put aside just $5 a week in order to buy the blazers before this week.

The second argument is that the school overreacted by sending the children home on the first day they were required to have the blazers. They could have warned those children without blazers that they must have the blazers by yesterday or they would be sent home. At least in that way they would not have lost a day of school.

But given the comments of some of the parents, it is unlikely that this would have made much difference yesterday; many of the students would still have shown up without their blazers.

So the school was right to take the action it did, as harsh as it may seem at first glance. At a time when many members of the public are bemoaning declines in standards of behaviour and discipline, Mrs. Richards and the school are making it clear that they will maintain standards and those who flout them will suffer the consequences.

It is impossible to argue with that.