To ask what UK parents really think of school uniform

[longtimelurker101]

Relating to the thread on school uniform and hair dying. What do parents really think? Do you support the idea or would you prefer that schools across the U.K went non-uniform and had no rules regarding appearance?

Cruik I disagree and deal with it daily. The school where I work has the same blazer (provided to those who cannot afford and many payment plans in place). The rest of the uniform cannot be identified - a black skirt is a black skirt (skater/pleated style) and a blue shirt is a blue shirt. As an adult I may be able to tell the difference but children certainly can't.

Children are very aware of their backgrounds and in my previous post I used the example of pupils not attending school when it is free dress. A op said their children only had a small wardrobe and went on to list many many clothes ... Some of the children I teach have their uniform (provided by the school) and one more set of clothes. The uniform gives them a chance to develop.
Our pupils chose the uniform at my school and I would say 90% prefer it (I teach English and one of the standard exam papers is in uniform and always forms a discussion point - have had very few pupils who disagree with it - despite coming from school without uniform).

Students who have to put a little thought and organisation into their clothing may actually have a leg up on those who only have to peel themselves off the bed and reach around for the uniform

School uniform doesnt have to be worn 24/7. It's seven hours a day, five times a week. Plenty of time at the weekend and evenings for kids to express their creativity

Surely it would be better to tackle the attitudes behind that kind of herd mentality, to think about the societal mechanisms behind it, to meet it head-on where it first becomes prevalent and have a proper discussion about it, rather than papering over the cracks and pretending that just because you're telling a young adult what colour their hair should be you are some kind of bastion of equality.

This, a thousand times.

Well, if personal experience is the trump card re poverty/uniform arguments, I got bullied at school despite the school having a uniform because I did indeed have the 'wrong' bag/shoes/coat etc due to my parents having very little money - uniform did fuck all for me or any of the other kids in my position at my school. In fact, it actively hampered my parents from providing the 'cool' stuff because they had to spend money on uniform and money on other clothes as well, and there just wasn't enough to do both properly.

But as I've said previously Ambroxide we do this, and apprearance and such STILL creates issues. Also note this conversation is about uniform not hair colour.

But then that causes a thing in its self, why can Ashley have her hair blue, but Rob can't have his hair blue with MCFC carved into it?

No uniformed school that I have even indirect experience of does that in the same way that both non-uniformed schools I have experience of do. It's obviously a small sample size. I know how I interpret it, though.

But as I've said previously Ambroxide we do this, and apprearance and such STILL creates issues.

Eh? I thought that uniform was a 'leveller'? Is it really true that we in the UK (alone in the world, pretty much in having sodding uniforms at all) are actually not living in some kind of pre-lapserian paradise despite all of the diktats about what colour shoes our teenagers should be wearing? Who knew?

The bullying you recieved can be used to argue for uniform though, what if there had been no uniform and you're lack of clothes to give you cache had got you bullied more?

Sadly Cruikshank and ambro it will take a lot more than a teacher and a school to solve those problems. All I, and those like me, can do is make the lives of all the children we teach as smooth as possible whether rich or poor. So I go to work, I uphold the school rules and I do my best for these children.

Uniform puts the focus firmly and squarely on clothes and what you look like. Non-uniform does not. And it doesn't matter about blue hair or logos. I can't see how either of those things impact on someone's ability to learn.

Of course you do, purple. I'm certainly not suggesting that teachers are meanly choosing to fiddle about over tiny rules for no reason. I realise that they have to uphold the rules. It's not their fault!

Ambroxide, the direct experience of others on this thread that have said the opposite doesn't count then? Or my own experience of it in the US and here in the 80s?

The fact that we educate our children from a young age that it is not ok to judge others on their appearance, and that we have it in nursery, primary and secondary schools doesn't seem to help the fact that teenagers do judge each other and comment on having the right bits of kit.

Maybe if the system was entirely non uniform from the start it wouldnt be an issue, but its not.

So MCFC carved into someone's hair is not going to cause a distraction in the room? Or the boy in my school who got the Arsenal badge shaved into his head in a school which has supporters of Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea in it? Oh yes, thats not distracting, or providing students with a distraction at all.

The bullying you recieved can be used to argue for uniform though,

Yes, I really felt like it was a leveller for me as my inferior school bag that my mum worked so hard to buy was kicked around the classroom and ridiculed - it made all the difference that the people doing it were wearing the same fucking tie as me.

I can only really rely on my experience!

I can't see how anyone could possibly care about someone's hair, tbh. Surely it's perfectly possible to carry about an Arsenal bag or whatever instead if that's what floats Rob's boat. How is that less distracting if he has it on the back of his chair?

Cruikshank no offence but I would imagine that it's a year or two since you left school and I can assure you things have probably moved on from that. Yes bullying does happen BUT is probably handled a lot differently and is very rarely over uniform or clothes these days.

Would it not have been worse if they were all in Levi's and you were in hand me downs?

So as we're using personal experience, as someone whose parents were working class, but also had priorities for their money, I never got the designer gear, or the expensive jewlery, or all of that. I went to a pretty bog standard comp back in the 70s and things were hard. I was always glad of the uniform as it allowed me to keep the few nice things I had for best/wearing out, where as if I'd had to wear it every day would have got ruined. Had there been no uniform there was no way my Mum and Dad would have provided the same money for buying clothes, and me and my younger sister would have been in the hand me downs that we got from our cousins. I felt it leveled me up with kids whose parents earned more than mine.

Well if anecdotes are what counts, I have plenty of examples of how uniforms spectacularly fail at being any sort of socioeconomic "leveller".

• the boy in my primary school class who was mocked for his jumper being a slightly off shade that looked different to everyone else's. It was a hand-me-down from a cousin from a different school, and his parents probably couldn't buy him a new one.

• The other boy in my primary school class who was often ignored and left out because his uniform was tatty and smelled funny. The year beforehand, before uniform was introduced at the school, there hadn't been a problem. In retrospect, I think he only had one uniform shirt and his family only did laundry on weekends, so the poor boy was whiffy by Friday. But there hasn't been a problem when he wore normal clothes to school because he had several t-shirts etc.

• The many girl in my secondary school class who were picked on by the cool kids for having the wrong bag, hairstyle, shoes, etc., which were also the expensive option. The cool kids were always the rich kids. The uniform was no barrier to their ability to tell brands from cheapie options.

• The boy in my DP's secondary school class who, in his first year, wore a hand-me-down uniform jumper from his older sister, who was somewhat large of boob and had left the jumper stretched out in places that hung baggy on a teenage boy's chest... His parents couldn't really afford a new jumper for him. His nickname all through school - and for a few years afterwards - referred to it.

And so on. Leveller my arse. Socioeconomic differences are still obvious with a uniform, even to other kids.

Well indeed why not? I'm struggling to see why a hairstyle might be disruptive. Or make up for that matter. I asked dd whether make up was an issue in class and she looked at me blankly. Clothes/hair/make up etc just isn't an issue at her school. They don't even have gym kit (just a requirement for sports shoes that don't damage the gym floor). I buy no special clothes for school at all. Just a bag for books (and no issues about what brand of bag).

At her school there are kids with mohecans (generally First Nation), kids with long hair, kids with shaved hair, kids with dyed hair - all sorts really. Unless someone had gang related stuff or swear words shaved into or dyed into their hair then I can't see that it really matters. Schools here don't even make children with long hair tie it back and nothing bad seems to have happened as a result.

Ok so it's not England, and our town doesn't have huge income disparities (no one is hugely rich - plenty of poor people) or much fashion sense but it's nothing special really. I don't really see why an average school in the UK would be very different.

Sadly Cruikshank and ambro it will take a lot more than a teacher and a school to solve those problems.

Yes, and it will take a lot more than uniform also, which is why it is galling to hear this glib 'leveller' justification trotted out at every turn, when it makes fuck all difference.

Would it not have been worse if they were all in Levi's and you were in hand me downs?

It would have been no worse and no better. That's what I'm saying. It made no difference that we all nominally wore 'the same' clothes. We weren't 'the same'.

I had a uniform and didn't mind it.

However, now I disagree with the idea. I think some sort of guidelines are fine - kids going to school in swimwear or offensive teeshirts is obviously not great - but generally I think clothes, hair and makeup are forms of self-expression and individuality which I can see no need to repress in children and teens.

Would it not have been worse if they were all in Levi's and you were in hand me downs?

My parents weren't rich. I had 1 pair of Levi's and some other jeans. In 6th form we wore jeans and jumper everyday. Girls and boys. Now there's a leveller.

To be honest the hair thing is a red herring, in my school we don't sanction hair unless its designed to be provacative like the Arsenal thing, that did cause distraction in every class the boy went to.

Income disparities do make a difference, in London you can have super wealthy kids sitting in classes with kids from the council estate who are getting help from the school even to get the uniform, I think it does cover this quite well.

And Geek, I asked the question at the start, there are far many more posts saying the opposite to you.

MerryMarigold - good point. I loved 6th form - for a couple of years before it I'd been doing the indie/goth/charity shop chic thing out of school (and because it was cheap I could do it on my part-time job earnings from age 14 onwards) and thus found my own 'tribe' outside of it where I wasn't getting the shit kicked out of me because I didn't have a Kappa jacket or whatever. Once we got into 6th form I discovered that there were others like me there and everything was much much better. If we'd been allowed (imagine! being allowed to choose what clothes to wear! the blimmin liberty!) to do that a couple of years previously it would have been so much easier for all of us.

Don't most people find 6th form much nicer because all the knuckle heads leave? I certainly did.