School bans pencil cases - AIBU to think this is a superficial measure?

[ScreamingValenta]

I was fascinated to read this BBC article today:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44075878

A school has banned pencil cases (and other branded items) to avoid the stigma poorer pupils may suffer because they don't have 'designer' school kit.

This has made me feel very old - in my schooldays in the 1980s, everyone got their pencil cases from WHSmith or Woolworths, and it was fashionable to have an ancient, scribbled-on, falling-apart pencil case with the name of your favourite band tippexed onto it - new, expensive pencil cases were for geeks only.

Are designer pencil cases really a thing now? Does banning branded things in schools really help with bullying or is it a superficial tick-box exercise? Should schools not be addressing the underlying issues which create a culture of stigmatising poorer pupils - banning designer items in school won't stop pupils being seen out of school or on social media wearing unbranded clothes?

I know nothing about what goes on in schools nowadays, other than what I read on Mumsnet, so I'm not really qualified to answer my own questions - I'd be interested to hear any up-to-date perspectives from parents or teachers.

Where are they supposed to keep their pens and pencils then?

Quite. It wouldn't have worked in my school as we didn't have any personal desks or lockers, so had to lug everything round from class to class all day. We'd have had to have something to keep pens and pencils from getting broken/staining bags etc. I doubt the school could have afforded to give us standard-issue pencil cases, as we already had to share text books, with some sets being used by several classes, so homework had to be juggled to fit round nights when you could take one home without depriving another class.

I can see the thinking behind it. I doubt pencil cases are really that big of a deal in terms of competitiveness.

Have you seen a smuggle pencil case, I can assure you they are definitely a status symbol and some of them are so flaming huge they take up most of the table. Small children in Primary school do not need pencil cases full stop the schools provide stationary.

@SwingCity Thankfully, none of those things were en vogue in my day. We were allowed to wear red noses when Red Nose day was invented in (?) 1988 but other than that we didn't have non-uniform or dressing up days.

My two go to a state school and DD has some smiggle pencil cases (given as Bday presents) Backpack and lunch box from M&S bought by myself.
DS has generic backpack and lunch box bought from Amazon.
School they go to is in London and kids from diverse background some of their friends live in small council flats and couple live in huge houses worth over 1.5 million.
We are definitely one of the better off families not rich but comfortable but I don't buy them designer trainers etc.
DD was laughed at for wearing "Sainsbury's trainers" for PE by a couple of girls in year above who I know for a fact come from very disadvantaged backgrounds.
I find it's some of the poorest children who have the designer clothes and kit.

It's just one measure, among lots of others, like reducing the number of dress up days / non uniform days etc. The area the school is in has some serious deprivation so I'd guess they know that the combination of lots of small monetary pressures can make a big impact on a lot of their families.

It also says about them changing their procedure for accessing free school uniforms, to encourage more parents to get it, so they clearly have done something about uniform costs as well.

The pencil case is the headline because it seems like a small, insignificant thing to most so people will have the "Oh how ridiculous, all this nonsense in schools nowadays, kids can't even have their own pencil case, grumble grumble in my day grumble grumble why don't they bring back / get rid of / focus on X,Y, Z instead." But really, the actual story is 'school in deprived area introduces a range of measures to reduce the number of occasions when poor kids might be made to to stand out and feel bad about themselves'. Nowt wrong with that.

This is primary school so if its anything like my children's they provide stationery anyway.

I think this is a good idea. kids can be mean. It's the same with lunchboxes/backpacks etc. Our school is staffed mainly by younger teachers who haven't got children yet and I honestly don't think they realise how much everything costs and how hard it is for someone on low income. This headteacher seems to have her head screwed on.

The conversations about the weekend thing is ridiculous though.

The ultimate 80s stationery icon, before his career took off on 7-Up cans!

I really don't like the idea that just because one person can't have something, then no-one else can have it either. It just doesn't seem a very good lesson to be teaching young children.

I think the pencil cases is over the top, but agree with many of the other things mentioned in the article. Especially any that help overcome excuses not to take part in PE.

I think it's a good idea. Schools waste far too much time looking for little Johnny's lost pencil case/pencil/rubber.

Oh ffs. Some children will have expensive Smiggle or Paperchase ones, some will have similar style ones bought from B+M or Wilkos that cost less. The children won't care one bit. They just like pretty stationery and mostly aren't actually aware whether it's expensive or not.

On its own yes it’s a trivial thing

But as part of a wider ethos of the school (which it sounded like it was from the article) I think it’s great. It’s good that the school are identifying ways that disadvantaged pupils are affected that go beyond the obvious. It’s a realisation that a dozen small things can add up to a big obstacle that prevents disadvantaged students attending and achieving their potential.

Screaming I had the ring binder & notebook, ‘so don’t you forget it’

Seriously at first I thought it was a daft idea re the pencil case & bag banning. Now I think about it, it seems a good idea as the divide between rich & poor seems so much greater today.

Where are they supposed to keep their stuff?
Nobody here has Smiggle (thank goodness)

But really no one has to have the designer tat. If they long for it - fine. Let them have Smiggle kit for their birthday. But if they don't, why do schools stress about it? Not all rich kids choose or are offered designer tat. DC go to a private school where some of the pupils own castles and some are on bursaries. DC aren't on bursaries but they may look as if they are. They have £1 pencil cases from Wilkos, Sports Direct waterbottles and Clas Ohlsen backpacks which have lasted for about five years.

@bookmum08 I don't teach primary, but they certainly arrive to me in year 7 with a very clear understanding of cheap stuff vs. expensive stuff. I don't imagine that only develops over the summer between primary and secondary.

Or they could just stop the kids from being bullying little shits, of course.

I love that it's a Primary school that has made the ban, yet the supporting comments in the article are from teenagers.

I teach primary. The kids are absolutely aware that Smiggle is expensive ime.

But Mina, your kids can presumably still take part in dress up days? Can bring in their quids for non uniform charity days? Can take part in the class secret Santa? Can answer the question "what did you do at the weekend?" with something other than "we went to the foodbank and got to eat a proper dinner for the first time this week". A lot of these kids can't. It's not about one bloody pencil case or water bottle. It's the unrelenting misery of being really, properly poor.

It's a bit pointless imo. This is what children do. If they don't do it about pencil cases, they will find something else. That's why I don't think uniform makes as much difference as it's supposed to. If nasty kids haven't got the option of unfashionable clothes to mock, they'll pick on skirt length, bag, phone, trainers, lack of make-up, haircut etc etc. Everyone knows who the cool kids are. There's no hiding it, and presumably at secondary school they'll be allowed all the 'stuff' anyway.

I meant to say - it's banning the stuff that's pointless. What needs to be dealt with is the behaviour surrounding it.

Kids being bullied for not wearing branded items was an issue when I was at school and I left in 2004. My mum couldn't afford it

I can't imagine the pressure now with the rise of back to school YouTube videos that show expensive school supplies and clothing. Kids don't realise that YouTubers are sent things for free.

I don't know how much it will help because kids are still on social media.

But like you say, it's natural that kids pick on each other. You'll never wipe it out, ever. But you can try to adjust the environment a bit so that the kids from poorest background aren't always the target, while also working on tackling the behaviour. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

@TracyBeakerSoYeah

I agree on your more serious point. There certainly wasn't an obvious divide in terms of possessions between rich (er) and poor pupils at my school, though the catchment area was quite wide and spanned a range of probable income brackets measured in terms of housing. Some pupils received free school meals while at the other end, occasionally someone would leave to go a private school .

It was definitely an environment where sounding too 'posh' was more likely to get you bullied than looking too scruffy, and as mentioned before, it was essential if you wanted to be seen as cool to wreck your possessions with graffiti and badges etc.

I dont have Dc Whats Smiggle.