Is there ANY proven correlation between school uniform and performance?

[Hullygully]

Any data (either way) anywhere?

Interestingly, Netherlands ranked second start school at the age of 4 (4th birthday). However, reading/writing is taught in year 3 (around age 7). Certainly for my DCs there was lots of prep leading up to this to teach fine motor controls etc etc etc. They didnt go from playing in the sand pit for 3 years straight into reading/writing.

Lazaruss I didn't say that the stupid girls were thick, and yes they are unpleasant. Lots of nasty behaviour going on in their particular year. Not sure why, I think they are all just fed up with each other (last year of elementary). There aren't gangs, it's all very fluid friendship groups (so lots of insecurity which is probably fueling some of the unpleasantness) but the rows and fights are very stupid. One girl apparently yelling about another 'you are a lesbian homophobe' for example. Of and I don't need to rely on dd's word as we've seen/heard it in action (as have other parents). These are all local children so we see them interact on a regular basis (sadly they all used to be friends so we know some of the kids very well).

Is dd stressed, yes because she doesn't like the confrontation. No there have been no calls for particular bags, calculators or anything else. She does get stressed about tests but that is to please her teachers not her peers, I suspect she gets more grief about being an honour student then kudos for her achievements. Children are generally quite mean at times, I expect it is a developmental stage/phase.

I just don't see uniform making the slightest bit of difference.

Agree that the Scandinavian examples are of limited value as the society is very different.
(for one thing, society places higher value on practical skills taught by working class parents, so there isn't the same sense that useful things can only be learnt at school)

Looking around me here in the SE of England, it is clear that in my neck of the wood the schools who have very formal uniform are the ones that are slightly worried about their discipline/performance. The ones with a good record tend to either have an informal uniform or have pupils who are known for wearing their uniform in a very casual manner shall we say.

What this does seem to prove is that HT's do believe in uniform as a discipline raiser but by using its stricter forms manage to send a message to pupils and parents that "we're not very confident here", which possibly has the opposite effect.

:I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you about the practical skills thing. But what I think makes a difference is the levelness of society, which is evident in schools, as well. Different abilities are kept in same teaching groups and academic competition us not really encouraged. Everyone's meant to learn the same things and there is more of an atmosphere if "we" rather than "me". Teachers are called by their first names (as are most people in most professions - titles and surnames are seen as pretentious - nobody's better than anyone else, after all) which further encourages a "we together" atmosphere. There's probably lots more too, but the unfairness of the class society and fierce individualism/competition (who's better/richer than who, and who's an unquestioned/unearned authority) is the one thing that consistently annoys me about the British society.

There are of course also down sides to this "nobody should be better than anyone else", but in terms of overall school results, it seems to be working.

I'm under the impression that in Britain a lot of children get stamped with "thick" and "problem" and educated separately from very early on (when Finnish children would not be deemed ready for school yet), which probably makes them feel like they are, and won't ever catch up/be any good (self fulfilling prophecy).

Oh, it also occurred to me that the vast majority of people in Finland (until the last couple of decades) have always been quite poor, so there could not have been a school uniform. Clean clothes was all that could be really reasonably asked for.

I don't know how schools think that it's reasonable to dictate the buying certain clothes of a certain price here. As a parent, I would feel patronized.

Luckily ds's pre-school doesn't do uniforms.

Cory my feeling with the uniform/discipline thing is that it is very easy to have a strict uniform policy. Anyone who deviates one iota can then be sent home. Parents wont have a leg to stand on as they will have signed the home/school agreement.

Of course this will tend to sweep up the vast majority of 'difficult' students. The school doesnt have to worry about parental claims of students being led astray by others or being picked on by teachers.

Uniform can then be used as a short cut. Of course, loads of other students who arent trouble get swept up but that doesnt seem to bother the schools who use this approach.

How hard is it to conform to a dress code?

Rebelling against a uniform by the parents makes you wonder. Is this why you end up with parents challenging teachers when their kids are disciplined?

Once the kids know their parents will go in and kick off on their behalf, they start playing one against the other... they do it with parents too, play mum against dad.

No, it isn't why you end up with parents challenging teachers when their kids are disciplined. Or not in my case anyway. I do think uniforms are utterly pointless and also quite nasty. And that there are rather more things for a school to focus on (see Cory's point above).

It is also entirely possible to borderline like mad with the school uniform, and be an utter goody two-shoes in all other academic respects. I myself chalked up a set of extremely creditable O levels (back in the days when such things existed) while wearing a non-school shirt and no bra underneath.

I personally wouldn't rebel, or show my displeasure to my son, because realities are realities. Whatever. After all we have chosen to live in this country.

Just find the whole existence of school uniforms/strict dress code a bit patronising. If you think people can't be trusted to behave in a sensible way without strictly enforced rules, they will live up to your (bad) expectations and rebel. The question is now, are the Brits then inherently unable to be as sensible (in terms of school wear) as, for example, the Scandinavians - and if so, why? For the record, I don't necessarily think so, but, like I said before, I do think that it is possible that if parts of society are patronised for long enough, they will not want to conform to the rules of "authority".

I'd say the biggest pro of having a strictly uniform policy is that teachers can teach, and student can learn.

You don't have dramas such as a teachers and students 'interpretation' of the dress code clashing.

As for creativity, and individuality , there are other outlets withing the school for that sort of thing.

In my thoughts creativity and individuality are not that important, but freedom and mutual trust in society is. Everything else follows. I do realise that after having such distrust and unfairness in society for so long, the consequent ill feelings and rebellion are hard to combat with anything else than explicit rules.

I find it a bit sad. Anyway, I've been here long enough to be slowly getting more used to being a lowly pleb to be patronized

But yet again Lazarus, if that's your "biggest pro" how do you account for the success of all the countries without uniform?

What hully said. Oh those poor children in the Netherlands and Finland, whose teachers can't teach because they're constantly worried about what their pupils are wearing, sort of thing.

Not.

poor lazarus

it just won't compute

Finland is highly ranked in terms of literacy and numeracy.

Finnish children don't have to wear a uniform.

Therefore Finns owe their academic success to the lack of a uniform policy???

Hully - I don't think that you are in a position to tell Laz that his argument does not compute.

But to continue with your line of "reasoning", Hong Kong is also above us. So, does this mean that this proves the case that loads of homework and academic pressure improves academic ability. Or are you intent on only cherry picking.the countries that fits in with your ideas about parenting?

Glad to see this discussion is still going strong. I think uniform is one of those anomalies of the modern world like daylight saving. We do it and defend it but don't know why.

But why the need for a complicated dress code? DD's sixth form's dress code is very simple and illustrated with pictures of things which must not be worn. The dress code is not that far beyond 'dressed'.

It is when schools impose silly dress codes like 'smart casual' or 'business casual' which most adults struggle with and are open to huge variation in interpretation that they have problems and endless debate.

I dont think that anyone has argued that academic success is because of a non-uniform policy but that uniform is not a key to academic success.

If memory serves this thread stems from Hullygully's DC's 6th form wanting to impose a type of uniform because it would improve academic performance.

Costco of course correlation does not equal causation. But hully is asking a legitimate question and not getting an answer.

Personally I think the answer is cultural and rooted in the remains of the class system, the drive towards conformity and the enormous divide between rich and poor in the UK.

However, I just don't happen to think that 'oh well, it's just our culture and we should all put up with it' is good enough. Where something makes no sense - and since we don't have a body of research evidence to support the contention that school uniform makes sense, that is what we have - isn't it right to question it?

Yes, the UK has a tradition of having school uniform. It also had a tradition of not having female priests in the C of E, women not having the vote, and if you go back far enough, slavery and feudalism. All those things were challenged and have changed. Why should we not strive to do better by our children and look at changing our culture for the better?

So- um- why when we think of 'leading academic minds of our time' do we not instantly think of any Finns? Seeing as their education system is so amazing?

Genuine question. If Finland is doing it oh-so-right... where's the evidence? Other than on someone's statistical chart? Measuring what, exactly? I seriously do't believe that, per head capita, Finland is churning out many world greats- certainly no more than anecdotally, say, New Zealand.

FWIW I have no confidence whatsoever in international league tables of this type. You only need to watch one 'Brits moving to an Aussie Paradise' TV show to hear, as an aside, illustrated by a bloke surfing off a palm fringed beach: 'Australian state schools are excellent', End Of. Or for that matter, try suggesting to a back-packing Aussie here in the UK that something, anything about Oz is less-than-bonzer! See what happens to happy-go-lucky then! No, Australian state schools are not, necessarily 'excellent' (my authority on the matter is that I am half Australian and lived there for 15 years with DC; and saw, first hand back in the UK, four families from the UK emigrate to Oz, return to the UK and have at least one DC per family go into remedial help as a result....!)- but the perception is that Australian state schools are excellent. Is it not possible that an Australian educationalist might, if asked to rank his country's 'educational achievement' might say 'Hey, yep, we're right up there, mate; No Worries'... As, in any 'table', what are you actually measuring? The French might say 'a solid, non-deviating recollection of facts, facts, facts' in which they're A+, a Brit might say 'The ability to process and use information'- another A+; Australians might say 'Being a bloody good all rounder in sports'. A+.

Who, actually, knows? ARE we comparing apples with apples?

Because we're just all very good, but not amazingly fantastic. Also we are really very modest and tend to not want to be figure heads for things (culturally we're quite introverted and quiet). There are also only 5 million of us.

Well, for example lots of medical research comes from Finland, but it's team work, not about individual "geniouses". Finally, geniouses, like Nobel Prize winners are largely born, not made. Only a relatively small gene pool in Finland..