To think that switching to polo shirts makes the school uniform look low-rent?

I don’t think kids need to “be prepared” for wearing shirts and formal uniform at secondary. It’s not like wearing certain clothes is a skill you need to learn- you just start wearing it. Why start doing it at 4 when you could be comfortable for longer?

The crazy thing is that they go to university right before they start work and lounge around in hoodies and trackies for 3 years.

Why are they being 'prepared for work' at 4, but not at 20?

It makes not a jot of sense.

As you don't actually rent school shirts I think you really mean 'low class'. You don't seem to be concerned about children being comfortable, but more about how affluent they look.

I’m team polos all the way

the secondary kids have to wear shirts and jumpers and blazers and yes while smart it doesn’t look comfy at all

most of the world has moved on from “smart”. My (very corporate) office is now jeans and trainers and in summer, shorts/summer dresses and flip flops are the norm

There’s only one primary around here (in an affluent part of Cheshire, if it matters) which insists on shirts over polos. And it’s the school known for being very formal, not particularly warm and “rules for the sake of rules”.

At primary school, I think it’s reasonable for small children to have a uniform that doesn’t need ironing and is easy to take on and off. Our preferred primary has an “active uniform” which would probably horrify you- essentially a PE kit all the time. I love the concept.

I don’t think kids need to “be prepared” for wearing shirts and formal uniform at secondary. It’s not like wearing certain clothes is a skill you need to learn- you just start wearing it. Why start doing it at 4 when you could be comfortable for longer?

The accountancy firm I work for has branded polo shirts we can wear if we choose, and fleecy gilets & jackets.

My kids could go to school in 'top hat and tails' and they'd still look low rent by the time they finish!!

I'd much prefer them to be comfy.

It may interest you to know that the only schools that do uniforms in the US are private schools and some schools in very rough areas. Private schools (unless for the very rich) tend to have far poorer facilities than the public/ state schools, and actually many have a dress code instead of a uniform per se. There are certainly no blazers that must be worn daily.

When I see people here huffing and puffing about image I always chuckle.

If I saw an American student wearing a uniform that didn't have a plaid skirt folded up to within 2 inches of the knickers or a pair of messy looking tan chinos, I'd assume they went to a school in a deprived area. Generally speaking, the stricter and neater the uniform, the lower the income and the higher the crime rate. The kids forced to adhere to strict uniform are being fit for enlistment in the armed forces and other careers where they will be taking orders, not giving them.

@WorkCleanRepeatWhat does an accountant look like? A suit? And tie? Many primaries have abandoned ties. A skirt and socks? All accountants could wear this of course!

I hate to see primary aged children going to school looking like little accountants. Polo t-shirts all the way!

Polos are great, affordable and comfy.

Our school has a choice of polo or shirt from P4 onwards and it looks absolutely fine.

My dc are at private school and have a very smart uniform that’s quite strictly followed. Shirt, tie and blazers. Our summer uniform is a polo shirt but that’s just due to the weather. I quite like the smart look.

I agree there couldn’t be a less practical school uniform item. I don’t know why they are so normalised in the uk still, apart from a few parents, no one likes them, although ‘cheap’ they are still the most expensive part of the whole uniform and they don’t even function in the sense of keeping you warm in the cold or keeping you cool in the heat, they feel horrible to wear, look awful after a few washes which with pongy teens you can’t avoid washing and they’re outdated. Outside of school the only time people tend to wear a blazer nowadays is for formal occasions, possibly a job interview, actual jobs that require them are getting rarer. The only secondary schools near me that don’t do ties and blazers are the SEND ones who have the right idea in my opinion. At this point there are more reasons for a uniform overhaul than against.

I need to replace my DC’s tie and blazer this year and buy a whole new uniform for younger dc starting in September. I resent having to pay for such pointless items of clothing when a polo and jumper would be more comfortable, would wash better and do the job just fine but schools seem obsessed with their image and if I want them to go to school I have no choice as they all have stuffy uniform policies where I am.

So if the school is in fact entirely satisfactory and giving your children a good education, why would you worry about what people who don't have children at the school think of it?

So it's more important to you that the kids look affluent than that they are comfortable?

I agree. I'm a teacher and I don't wear business dress. I dress comfortably and appropriately for my workplace and job.

I agree with having a uniform but the rules around workplace dress codes has changed so much, I think it's ridiculous to have the children trussed up in shirts and ties.

It’s a bit off topic but what I do hate in school uniform is blazers. Mainly because, for a blazer to look good, it needs to be quite expensive (probably unreasonably expensive for school uniform). Cheap polyester blazers look terrible and are not a good advert for a school. It would be better not to have them at all.

It seems weird and out of date to put children in shirts and ties to me. Neither DH or DS wear a shirt or tie for work, both work in offices.

I mean I find the entire notion that primary age kids should dress as 1990s office workerss completely insane in general. Who can learn and play in a shirt and tie. Office workers don't even wear them anymore.

And the whole looking affluent thing... really, who cares?

I didn’t put my primary age dc in trainers because they don’t measure width of feet and are not a fitted shoe. I think for young dc, they are not shoes which support growing feet. Trainers for sport - of course. Secondary - the school gave us options and again, trainers for sport.

I do agree that uniforms are battle grounds but my parents were proud of us in our school uniform (state school) and it wasn’t cheap. No uniform at primary. I like smarter attire for 6th form but offices now hardly require it - but jobs like nursing and the military do. It’s no bad thing to look presentable.

I do wonder whether the emphasis on school uniform, in state schools anyway, is a more recent phenomenon.

I started school in the 1960s and primary didn't really have a uniform. My last couple of years there the HT suggested it would be nice to have a "uniform" of grey trousers or skirt, white shirt and plain red tie but it was entirely optional.

I went to secondary school in the 1970s and our uniform was the worst thing you could possibly imagine. I have never met anyone who had a nastier one. Until a couple of years earlier it had been a very normal traditional uniform involving blazers and ties. However, when it changed from being a Secondary Modern to a Comprehensive someone decided to mark this change by re-designing the uniform to be more modern and "70s". Unbelievably nasty and also so impractical that in a fairly short space of time what people actually wore instead stopped being very uniform.

Sixth Form was wear whatever you want so was mostly jeans.

Roll forward 20+ years and my own DD (also at state schools) had a primary which insisted on shirts and tie, a secondary similar but also a blazer and in Sixth Form it was smart business wear. The smart business wear for Sixth Form was a recent innovation, previously they had been allowed jeans.

Personally I think many schools are rigid about uniform because they see it as a way of imposing discipline because they have so few other ways of doing that.

My children's school shoes are effectively black trainers, mostly from Clarks or similar. There is no requirement for them to be smart as such. I can understand the requirement for a particular colour, and rules about not having prominent brands etc., as allowing kids to wear expensive branded trainers seems likely to lead to problems.

Right. Many countries don’t have uniforms and their children and teens come out being functioning adults and able to dress themselves properly and appropriately for the right occasions.

Want a uniform, fine but at least make it comfortable and practical. How is it practical to sit in a polo, jumper and trousers for six hours a day, five days a week when many adults don’t in their workplaces and the whole it being an equaliser is such malarkey. Doesn’t seem to be doing that considering the bullying in schools.

Plus, it’s obvious just by going to other kids’ home, birthday parties, looking around their environment, etc who has money and who doesn’t.

A previous poster mentioned shoes. If you think about it logically, it’s actually really bizarre that it is so accepted that you need smart shoes for primary especially for infants when they should be doing play based learning. As an adult I wouldn’t go for a run in ballet flats and yet we want kids to be active in their play. It has never bothered mine to be fair but I suspect they take their shoes off a lot at school judging by the state of their socks.

It is noticeable that for my external school trips they say wear trainers with uniform.