Uniform is supposed to equal the DC out......but of course it doesn't

[JoceHark]

At DC's school everyone knows who has money and who doesn't. First it was the designer coats, the school then cracked down and said no brand names on coats.

Then the bags.

Now it's the belts. Kids wearing designer logo'd belts to school (no current ban in place).

Also a bizarre rule which says girls can wear one single ring (plain) and boys can wear a signet ring. Firstly I know plenty of women who still wear a signet ring (seems sexist that only boys can at school), but the signet rings they are wearing are bling'd to all hell and back.

Should we just accept that school uniform is actually a load of bollocks.

It doesn't prepare them for work, how many office staff do you know who wear a tie and blazer to work everyday? And how many of them are women?

It's a huge bill for parents

It creates a wall between parents and the school and kids and the school

It's just an unnecessary cause of stress all round and hasn't been proven to have any benefit on education. We seem to just cling on to it as a British thing which has always been done

'It was obvious in my school who the poor kids were because they had supermarket trainers for P.E. '

Christ, is that meant to be stigmatising? Mine have always had supermarket trainers, and we're not poor, they're just perfectly decent and easy to get hold of!

Whattodowith.
That's grim, poverty and being poor is one thing, it doesn't cost anything to brush a kids hair.

There were certainly kids like that in my schools, as a child you see it as the 'poor kid's' don't think kids don't notice. But now as an adult I see it as neglect.

I should clarify I mean the unwashed, unbrushed hair rather than clothes and shoes.

Titsywoo I can totally get that. It's a weird thing.
That's not weird at all, adults do it all the time, except maybe stealing pens from one another. See the recent thread re- budgeting.

I don't really like uniform but I tolerate it. What I really object to is the style and cost of it. If it was trousers and a polo shirt from the supermarket and a sweatshirt for everyone it wouldn't be so bad but ties, blazers, shirts with a proper collar, logoed skirts (so girls can't turn the waistband over) and insistence on a certain cut of trousers is just too much. Additionally only black shoes that cannot be above the ankle bone. PE kit all with school logo and children's initials on it. The cost is ridiculous. Typically my child will be carrying several books, ipad (also compulsory), lunch, drink and coat in a back pack plus pe kit in another bag or a musical instrument. The walk is nearly two miles each way. Any adult would wear comfortable clothes and trainers or boots if they were covering that distance with that load in all weathers.

Oh yes and 6th form is 'business wear' with strict rules to adhere to. I'll probably be wishing for uniform at that point...

Supermarket trainers as a sign of poverty does seem extreme!

Also I always looked a state in my PE kit because I tended to get it from the lost property. I wasn’t poor, just couldn’t be arsed to go to the uniform shop.

Anyway, I loved uniform at school and the fashion parade that was 6th form terrified me.

I think the answer is a cheaper school uniform.

I kind of agree but when I went to school, we didn't wear uniform and the extremely wealthy children were the ones who looked like they'd come straight from mucking out about on their horses. They wouldn't have been seen with branded belts or anything like that. You could tell by the hair as well. The girls who came to school with 'done' hair every morning stood out against boys and girls with long, wild hair- who were the mega rich ones.
I wouldn't necessarily correlate branded gear with having money, I'd think they just preferred that stuff over other things. Anyone can get credit for whatever they want these days without having the money upfront.

Anyway, I loved uniform at school and the fashion parade that was 6th form terrified me.

Same. I would have hated not having a uniform all the way through school before that.

DC now at a uniform-wearing secondary. Uniform relatively cheap. They went to a non-uniform-wearing primary.
Until Year 5, I was happy with the non-uniform aspect of their primary. And then DS (then aged 10) started demanding expensive Nike Hypervenom (sp?) trainers instead of his usual Clarks ones. I resisted. And then he wanted Nike joggers. Again, I refused. Tears flowed. He HAD to have the hypervenom trainers and Nike joggers. I was confused - he'd never had his head turned by brand names before; had never been demanding or bratish. But I was officially The Worst Mother In The World for not caving in.
And then I went into the school playground to pick him up one day after a meeting with his teacher (normally picked him up from the front gate) and saw at least a dozen of his year-mates (the 'coolest' most dominant boys) wearing identical Nike jogging bottoms and luminous Hypervenom trainers.
So basically a uniform.
Which is why I don't buy the no-uniform arguments (that no uniform means they can be more individual/express themselves/it's cheaper for parents/uniform institutionalises them etc. etc.)
They just create their own bloody uniform themselves, with masses of added peer pressure, tears and expense.
Give me black polyester, Clarks shoes and the odd off-limits belt, ring or bag as a rebellious touch any day.

I don't understand the people saying uniform doesn't prepare people for working life since in the real world there are many people who wear uniforms in their jobs - all the uniformed services (obviously, apart from plain clothes police officers, maybe); healthcare professionals; supermarket workers; delivery drivers; airline staff... Like someone else said, it helps kids understand a dress code.

In most hospitals, for instance, and offices outside the "creative" sphere, even if you're not in uniform, there's an unspoken dress code (sometimes even a written one). Okay, not that many professions wear shirts and ties, but a few still do, especially if they're visiting clients - I don't think I ever dealt with a salesperson, for instance, who wasn't wearing a nice suit or at the very least a nice jacket and good shoes. And even within the creative industries, there's a sort of informal uniform code - one of my favourite people watching activities is to try to work out what someone does for a living by the way they choose to dress....

Spare a thought for the teachers, too. Uniform also makes it easier for teachers to spot kids if they're on a school trip; it makes it easier for bus drivers (for instance) and local shopkeepers to recognise which school kids are from should they be daft enough to attempt to cause trouble.

And as a poor kid whose family had no money at all, I had a much, much harder time of it on "non uniform" days.

Pint I started teaching my DDs about brands and marketing from when they were old enough to talk. The commercials on telly were very useful. It is possible to teach children not to be brand obsessed fashion victims. It took DD1 about week to get used to throwing on whatever in the morning in 6th form and I don't expect DD2 to be any different. Yay for non uniform 6th forms.

Oh not the 'preparing for the world of work's argument again! Our kids are not so thick that they need 12 to 14 years for the lesson to stick. If parents do their job it takes no time at all.

They just create their own bloody uniform themselves, with masses of added peer pressure, tears and expense.
That is inevitable. even if they wear uniform to school (mine do) - they still need clothing within reasonable fashion and yes, they do want things that are popular.

What is this horror of suits in Sixth Form?
I’m in Scotland, they stay at school for 5th/6th year and wear uniform albeit with a different tie and sometimes braided blazer.
The whole English system is ridiculous and just seems to cost more ££ and stress for parents, go to your catchment school; one primary, one high; makes life easy.

It's true. It's always either A) the school uniform has to be bought in full from the school and costs more than your house, or B) the uniform is generic so some kids are dressed in George at ASDA and others are in Gucci.

Agreed @Bookworm4 - Scottish system always!

Oh not the 'preparing for the world of work's argument again! Our kids are not so thick that they need 12 to 14 years for the lesson to stick

I agree, I'm sure they go into shops and see people in uniforms, see the post(wo)man in a uniform or similar and twig that you need a uniform for some jobs.

I am in favour of a uniform but a simple one - polo shirts, trousers/skirts and a jumper. No ties. Also simple PE kit (though to be fair, my son's school changed from allowing a simple t-shirt and shorts from the supermarket to a "branded" kit and it washed and wore really well - and looked really nice - but it could also be optional).

Oh not the 'preparing for the world of work's argument again! Our kids are not so thick that they need 12 to 14 years for the lesson to stick. If parents do their job it takes no time at all.

It is quite amazing that children in the UK need to practice wearing uniforms for such a long time to get the hang of it, whereas children in other countries manage to wear uniforms for work with no practice at all.

Oh and suits for sixth form! Ugh. I am glad ds is going to a sixth form college where they can wear what they like.

The world of work? If they stay to this ‘6th form’ they more than likely go to uni where they dress how they like for 4/5 years. A suit to school is absolutely crazy, parents should en masse refuse to buy these.

Went to school in the UK and in a non uniform country.
In the UK it was full uniform, basic black school bag, no trainers, no make up, no nails, natural hair colour rules. I was bullied massively and had a much bigger wardrobe.
In the non uniform it was jeans or leggings and a tshirt/hoodie. I had my hair dyed a new colour every month (reds, blues, yellows, greens) and work lots of make up. We got to express ourselves. But my wardrobe was smaller (because no uniform) and it was all the same stuff as I had in the UK.

@Jollymollyx "Uniform is brilliant, if kids wore sparkly dresses, or T-shirt’s with slogans, ripped jeans etc it doesn’t create a working atmosphere, and kids would choose inappropriate clothing which also may not be right for eg science."

Tshirts with slogans aren't distracting and don't change the working atmosphere. Also in my non uniform school we wore science coats over our normal sparkly dresses (although let's face it, it was more in the line of ripped jeans and slogan tshirts)

grisen same at my school in Holland - lab coats provided for science where needed, ditto safety goggles. And not a lot of sparkly dresses in sight either. Most of us wore practical clothes because we all had a long bike ride to school and back. I despair of people who view teenagers as a bunch of brand obsessed sheep incapable of any form of common sense.

And just because changing the UK culture of brand obsession would take hard work and time that is not a reason to shrug your shoulders and just accept the status quo!