Is there ANY proven correlation between school uniform and performance?

[Hullygully]

Any data (either way) anywhere?

daftdame the documentary was aired a while back but it seemed quite positive. The kids were happy. The emphasis was on how well the school had done so the filming was reflecting that.

Dd is year 11 and since Easter they have been allowed to wear their own clothes.
It has caused great angst amongst the girls...what to wear, will anyone else be wearing it, can't wear it more than once in a week etc.
Most of them would rather be in uniform.

I researched this a few years ago in an attempt to convince dd to start a campaign at school. From what I remember there was a fair bit of research made in the US and Australia but it was a bit dense, in that historically only private schools had uniforms and therefore the stats were skewed. There was an important piece done in the US which has had a huge effect over there meaning that most schools are becoming uniform schools. They based this on levels of 'delinquency' in a school and one of the reasons schools with uniforms worked better was it reduced gang affiliation and therefore took that outside the school.

I agree with you in that the system is fundamentally illogical, and as seeker says, another way for people to judge schools.

I am completely against uniform for primary children as it is dehumanising. I can understand the advantages at secondary where teachers need a homogenous group to work with.

The state school up the road has no uniform and has some of the best results in the country. I think there is absolutely no difference in academic performance. The difference is that although a lot of them go a bit nuts at 12 with goth affiliations etc, over time they settle into being themselves and don't feel the need to score points with clothes. They often choose similar clothes anyway, almost their own choice of uniform. The other non uniform secondary I know has a less privileged demographic and lower academic performance and the girls mostly wear jeans, trainers and have a kind of 'college' look.

I think for girls uniform is particularly restricting.

I grew up on benefits. Poorest family in the school. Uniform was expensive but it lasted. Unless someone threw tippex down it... had to endure a couple of terms with a tippex covered skirt but that was a hell of a lot less embarrassing than the occasional non-uniform days when I turned up in hand me downs and everyone else was super trendy.
Would I have done so well at school if I'd felt so conscious of my appearance every day? I think not!
That's just my personal experience rather than a proper study.
I don't understand how having to buy uniform works out more expensive yhsn not? You just buy fewer 'home' clothes!

"I am completely against uniform for primary children as it is dehumanising"

Really?

I like the fact my DC had a uniform at primary school for no other reason than I didn't have to think about what they were wearing every day.

For Primary, if you can buy the Uniform in the Supermarkets - it tends to be cheaper and much harder wearing than similarly priced "non-uniform" clothes.

I think uniforms can only be a good thing.
They don't cause a divide between rich & poor, as everyone regardless of class is wearing the same.

It looks smart

When on school trips, teachers can visibly see who's part of their group

It lasts and is machine washable and iron free

Schools are specifically not allowed to specify expensive uniform. You should challenge any school which tries this, it's back door selection. And it does happen.

Seeker - Why do schools want children under the age of 11 to all look the same? Wanting anyone to lose their individuality is the first step to distancing yourself from their humanity. It has a purpose in the world of emergency services, sports and adult work environments but not among the under 11s, there it is dehumanising.

Pumpkin - A tabard will do for school trips. Dark blazers reduce visibility.

All good clothes last and are washable.

Children can look smart in their own clothes.

Children under 11 don't tend to discriminate against each other unless it is encouraged by parents.

My daughter is an individual at school because of what she DOES not how she LOOKS.

What she DOES is conform to what someone else thinks makes her look good, she is NOT DOING freedom of choice.

The high school my children are expected to go to currently has a draconian uniform policy- blazers must be worn, outside coats taken off once on school premises so that uniform is visible, an exhaustive list of requirements both for regular uniform and PE kit.

My nephew got 8 standard grades at 1, and 5 highers at A. He received no academic encouragement or praise, but was frequently stopped in the corridors by the head, who complained that he was wearing the wrong colour of shoes and also phoned his mother to complain about this.

They have a new head now, but if there uniform policy isn't changed, I won't be sending them there. A school which has time to badger pupils about what they wear, but has no interest in their academic abilities, is no good for me when I want my children to get good exam results.

I think half the problem is that uniform can help, IF coupled with measures to make students proud of their school and to make the school a better place for learning. But you can't just insist everyone wear uniform and expect it to make a difference when nothing else is being done to improve the school.

Suzie, that's great but would you be happy to have the same haircut or clothes as everyone else you work with?

Don't you feel that the right to self expression is fairly important in terms of clothing and appearance?

Seeker, schools are very much allowed to impose whatever uniform they wish. There are guidelines from the DofE but these are not legally enforceable. Ours for one ignored them completely.

Seeker is that true about expensive uniform? I've posted this link before, but this is the new West London Free School Primary uniform. Only one supplier (same one as Eton's or something), everything logo-ed.
www.wlfs-primary.org/userfiles/WLFS%20Primary%20Uniform%20list.pdf
Sample items include jumpers for £18.50, polos for £7.50, gingham dress for £14, pinafore for £18. Ie everything costing at least double or even triple the generic items that I get.
If you're right, then surely then someone should challenge this list?
FWIW I think no uniform works in schools with quite a homogenous intake (e.g. St pauls girls). However in a very mixed school such as my kids' primary the uniform is excellent. However, it's very loose and there are no petty rules about suppliers or shoes as I think both the teachers and parents have better things to do than stress about whether shirts have logos on or not.
The new head introduced it and sats and ofsted has improved dramatically since. However, as someone above said, it is part of a whole raft of measures and is probably symbolic more than real.

BTW the head of the West London School came onto the thread and defended the supplier uniform thing. Said they were much more durable than ones you can buy elsewhere. My children's fleeces are fourth hand and are fine even though they cost half/third. How many children wear out their uniforms as opposed to grow out of them?
Not including trousers in that. My son must have razors for knees...

I agree it's back door selection btw

I just resolved to buy two of the most expensive items, and send him wearing them regardless of any damage or staining - before they made these items compulsory, we had a stockpile of cheaper alternatives so he was able to wear clean things.

No it's not true sadly.

Gvt documents stipulate that governors SHOULD consider cost and availability so as not to discriminate on grounds of poverty/income

however our governors ignored this

They just sad, if anyone has trouble affording it, have a discreet word and something will be done to help.

No one likes having a word about how poor they are

DD's sixth form college required business suits but were quite upfront in that it was primarily to attract parents to the school.
On open days the girls looked very smart, on normal school days, the code was relaxed.

Uniform in that case was marketing

I don't work at the moment but I have worn uniform. Didn't bother me at all.

After 16 went to a non uniform college and I really liked the freedom of not being in the most old fashioned stuffiest uniform imaginable. Had I just had to wear a jumper, polo and black trouser to school might not have felt the same way. As that's a variation of what I worse anyway but swapped black trousers for jeans

Wonderingagain - yes all good clothes last. However good clothes which last, tend to be expensive! Except school Uniform, which when bought from my local supermarket lasts pretty well, unlike their range of kids clothes. The school uniform clothes are also cheaper, because they can buy it in huge numbers, and there is no angst about left over stock. Uniform sells year after year.

If you think children need to wear their own clothes to express individuality, then you are teaching them that what matters is how they look. Also young children like to look like their friends. So if given free range choose to dress like their friends. Or even get excited when they find all their class are wearing the same M and S knickers (and no it wasn't part of school uniform).

mummytime said it better than me. Thanks!

New Head Teachers use a change in school uniform as an indicator of regime change. My DCs' HT did this. Sadly he is an incompetent loon so is currently leading the students in a polyester clad headlong charge to the bottom of the league tables.

I read the link to the Sutton Trust report. I thought this quote to be absolutely fascinating and totally chimes in with my own experience as both parent and trainer:

?One study even estimates that the impact of rapid feedback on learning is 124 times more cost effective that reducing class sizes.?

The feedback my DCs get is practically non-existent except for web-based homework (MyMaths).