To think that having a poncy school uniform does not raise standards

[ReallyTired]

Dd's school is offically inadequate. Rather than doing something about the appauling way that reading is being taught the new head is obcessed about black shoes and logoed sweatshirts. Provided children are comfortable and clean it really should not matter what they wear provided its practical.

I feel that focussing on uniform when the school has had an OFSTED that is only marginally better than the muslim school up north is missing the point. OFSTED made no criticism of what the children were wearing. OFSTED was critical about lack of ambtion in teaching targets and poor quality marking.

In finland children don't wear uniform and I am sure that that head teachers don't get their knickers in a twist about a four year old wearing a TESCOs cardigan.

If the uniform was the onky thing being tackled, thn I'd agree it was a pointless intervention.

But I don't believe for one second that its the sole thing happening, and a change in ethos may be part of a wider package of actions. Visual cues to that new ethos have their value.

And logo sweatshirts are hardly 'poncy' - from thread title I was expecting boaters and knickerbockers.

I think there should a rule, a bit like Godwin's Law, against mentioning "research that shows blah blah blah". Unless the context and parameters of the research are addressed, it contributes nothing.

Oh, I don't agree, Toadinthehole (well, obviously not, as I posted about it). I think that referring to research, even informally, as I did here, shows a value for the role of evidence-based decision making.

Ironically, out of habit I did spend a few seconds thinking about how much detail I ought to cite, and felt it would be inappropriate in the informal context to go into too much detail - that it would come across as being overly heavy-handed or self-importantly academic.

In this case, I believe it to have been a good quality piece of research, and you'll note that I did specify that the research had shown that it did not improve achievement in pupils with lower academic ability, not that 'uniform is useless'. It was part of a much larger study looking at a range of options available to Headteachers that have been suggested as having an impact on lower-ability pupils' academic achievement, and some of them are quite interesting and revealing.

Mind you, it would have been really interesting if uniform had had an impact on achievement!

The thing with Finland is that when you've got 100% literacy, you've got such a well oiled education system the kids could wear fancy dress and still learn.

If the uniform thing, which I actually do see as a good thing by acting as a leveller and ensuring the kids are in "work mode", is a raft of measures to improve standards it wouldn't be the thing I'd be worried about.

Worra v sneakily done

What is it about Finland which results in 100% literacy? I'd love to know what we can learn from them and have it put into practice. BTW that was a serious question as opposed to sarcasm.
P.S. Unform doesn't work as a leveller as children from poorer backgrounds often have little uniform or washed-out hand-me-downs. Fortunately at primary school children seem to notice less than those at secondary school.

Uniforms are in place for a reason. I personally much prefer uniform to normal clothes, imagine your dc being laughed at for wearing something too young or something other kids may perceive to be for the opposite sex. Or trainers that are nicks instead of nikes (true story )

Our school wear shirt& tie, v necked woollen jumpers with the school crest displayed, blazers and the girls have kilts. I love it.

My dd is in the preschool (who also have uniform). But on a Tuesday morning they have an outdoor class in local woodlands. Dd (4) wore a blue waterproof suit and come home sure that it was a boys suit because someone commented :(