School uniform costs: un-necessary items

[LLWK]

I was reading the recent news of Mike Amesbury's private members bill, that seeks to reduce the cost of school uniforms. It looks mainly at the "single supplier" issue that drives costs up, sometimes to a ridiculous level. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56376138

I also got to looking at uniforms for some local secondary schools (although my children are still at primary). What struck me was that costs could be reduced by not only increasing suppliers, but by cutting out items that aren't strictly necessary. One local comprehensive requires a branded PE kit (fair enough); but also a dance kit of a different polo shirt, with school and departmental logo; and them for that polo shirt to be worn for drama lessons, with regular uniform trousers or skirts, and the pupils in bare feet. Can dance not just be done in PE kit, and does drama really require a different top and no shoes, socks or tights? Or am I stuck in the past?!

It's up to you as a parent to raise your kids to understand that labels are basically the company making you pay to advertise their goods. We started it very young. It wasn't hard.

You can have a dress code (e.g. no big logos) even if you don't wear uniform.

Dc's school has a dress code for 6th form - basically appropriate work-wear.
Most boys wear shirts, jumpers, trousers (no jeans). A few wear ties, or jackets.

Girls wear a wider range as lots in dresses or skirts too, again generally look reasonably smart, comfortable and able to reflect their personality a bit.

Personally I feel it should be dress code rather than uniform even lower down the school - from year 10 maybe.

@MrsWombat, my school had official scarves, they were the only ones allowed. I’m not sure how much they cost, but mine was pretty good value as I still wear it today in my late 30s!

@CinnamonStar

You can have a dress code (e.g. no big logos) even if you don't wear uniform.

Dc's school has a dress code for 6th form - basically appropriate work-wear.
Most boys wear shirts, jumpers, trousers (no jeans). A few wear ties, or jackets.

Girls wear a wider range as lots in dresses or skirts too, again generally look reasonably smart, comfortable and able to reflect their personality a bit.

Personally I feel it should be dress code rather than uniform even lower down the school - from year 10 maybe.

We have strict business wear for sixth form - stricter than the dress code for dh who works in a very straight laced office - matching jacket and skirt - how many women wear a suit? - it's the worst of all worlds - the uniform was much cheaper - it's looked like shit but the kids didn't care, they care more about how a suit looks because it isn't uniform. I can't see what's wrong with jeans and a sweatshirt.

My school uniform changed three times whilst I was there. Once was the January term of year eleven. My entire year wore just a mishmash - most of us changed ties but beyond that nothing it was ridiculous with such little time left.

I would send them in own brand polos and trousers, there’s absolutely no need for it to be logoed!

I don't see why we can't go back to the uniform of the 90s.
My school was black trousers (proper ones not leggings or jeans) or skirts. White blouse/shirt. Logo jumper. Boys had to wear school tie - I'd scrap that. Black shoes. PE kit was black bottoms and white polo. No logo on any of it.
6th form was any clothes other than shorts and vest tops (weirdly mini skirts and strapless tops were allowed until we all started wearing them to challenge the rules).
The only items that were branded in anyway were jumpers and ties and they didn't cost a fortune. We looked smart but still individual.

Why do kids need to look "smart" at school in the UK, is this a parental demand - or do parents just want a cheap practical uniform?

Definitely the PE kit that eats the money at our school. Technically they have to have two pairs of trainers (but nobody who has asked an existing parent about it bothers). I also dislike the latest version of the PE kit as the girls' tops are a "fitted" style. Now, if you're buying clothes of your choice, you will only buy a fitted style of top if it fits you well. However with no choice, girls are landed with a top that may emphasise that they are over or under developed compared to their peers.

@Blueskyredcloud

Why do kids need to look "smart" at school in the UK, is this a parental demand - or do parents just want a cheap practical uniform?

That's a good question. I guess compared to modern uniform mine wasn't overly smart. But it was comfy ( I believe they changed to polos after I left, then went the other way and now have blazers and ties). As a child I liked having uniform. You couldn't tell that I was 'poor' when compared to my peers. As a parent I like that you can't tell which children are 'poor' compared to their peers. There's no pressure to have the "right" clothes. But modern uniform is too rigid and too expensive.

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo yes I can the most expensive bit is £22 school jumper , he has 2 a year, trousers just have to be black , white shirts , tie
We have no blazer and logi pe top , but shorts and socks plain so can get anywhere that does the colours
I think our school has a good mix of just couple logo items and the rest more generic
Ds also allowed to wear plain black trainers, no colour at all and I find this better as trainers last ( plays footie lunch) school shoes last him 2 weeks
So I am happy with our school uniform , they look smart and not to much logo
Always people selling online 2nd hand and also we have a local company that has a 2nd hand uniform place which they give to free to anyone ( going to donate ds grown out jumpers and trousers this week )

@pointythings no its up to us to decide what we want to do with our kids , my eldest ds not so bothered but my youngest like what he likes , he has a part time job and buys some of his own things or has for xmas and birthdays , but its not for me to tell him what he should of shouldn't like

Anyway uniform is better than when I was at school in 90's at least at my ds school
Supermarkets didn't do trousers had to be bhs , m & s or uniform shop so quite expensive, no cheap packs of shirts
Same as pe kit although no logo was still only available from uniform shop and girls had horrible blue knicker shorts and toght fitted yellow airtrex type shorts ( why I hated pe)

** shirts

donewithitalltodayandxmas if you choose not to teach your kids about brands and marketing and you end up with brand-obsessed kids, you don't then get to complain about how 'all the kids want the expensive brands'. That's a choice you make as a parent. Other choices are available.

It's also your choice as a parent whether or not to indulge a child who wants expensive branded gear. There are lots of ways to do this - make them earn it, encourage relatives to give money for birthdays and Christmas, or fund it yourself - but if you do, don't complain about it. This stuff really isn't rocket science.

I've ended up with two kids who don't care about brands, are savvy with money and have an individual style. Since having them in 6th form I've saved a fortune on clothes costs because of the way they shop.

The only items that should be branded as a requirement should be the blazer and tie. Then shirt, skirt/trousers, socks/tights, v neck jumper, polo shirt and shorts for PE, shoes and trainers/plimsolls in the correct colours which can be bought from a variety of shops. Potentially even the blazer could be bought unbranded and the logo sewn on! Branded PE kit only for the school sports teams.

Schools are supposed to help students and their families as much as they reasonably can, not squeeze them dry with uniform costs.

I don't get this obsession that many heads seem to have nowadays with unflinching, uncompromising adherence to the very last letter of the uniform rules. Is it something they learn in training? It seems to be more associated with academy schools from my observation.

The only items that should be branded as a requirement should be the blazer and tie

Why do you need a blazer with a logo on. Or a badge to see on.
What does it do exactly?

I mean as parents we arent allowed to photograph our children in schools and put on social media because potentially a child could be identified in the back ground and the school worked out placing the kid in danger.

Removing the logo completely would surely protect a child even more

Given it triples the cost at least,.often it can be 4 or 5 times the cost given u can buy a blazer in asda fir 10 quid last time I looked. What about the logo justifies the price hike

I think they should do away with blazers. They are uncomfortable and pointless. Getting a coat to fit over one is nigh on impossible. So when it rains they get drenched. Kids just stuff the pockets with crap so they don't even look smart.

Yy..they smell to high heaven too. You cant use softener so have to have a separate wash. U can't size up cos of the shoulder padding.

Far easier to have 2 twin packs of the generic sweaters that will last the week and 4 jumpers probably cost less than one blazer. No more mid week washing panic.

Plus jumpers can just be tied around the waist when it gets hot

@pointythings I really don't need some stranger on the internet to tell me how I need to bring up my kids and I can complain about what I like
I could afford at a push for my ds to wear whatever to school but many can't and I can't be responsible for what other kids think about brands or not
My ds is nearly 16 he can make his own mind up about what he wears or doesn't he doesn't have all branded, but he likes what he likes I don't dictate to him what he must wear

@pointythings also what you do with your kids is your choice you don't get to dictate or tell others
My ds uniform costs £200 for year at most so I don't consider that expensive for a year , but like I said his school does not have a lot of logo things just a small amount

Prep school, blazers are now over £100 for a blazer for a four year old!! They pride themselves on it being the same blazer as it's been for a hundred years.....trouble is this means it's pure wool and it has a wide white stripe at the front which gets instantly filthy....all food stains show on it or it just gets grubby. Completely impractical because you can't wash it, it has to be dry cleaned and therefore can only be done at half term. And it can't get wet. And it's hot, and the one for the 11-13 year olds is £120.

Utterly ridiculous, it shouldn't be allowed.

Oh, and the girls have to wear a hideously shaped summer dress up to the age of 10, when they're allowed to wear a summer skirt. It's a bespoke fabric, but it washes terribly, fades really quickly and so after a few months all of them looked washed out and years old. The cost? £45 for a simply cut thin cotton skirt where the zip breaks all the time, and £55 for the summer dress. They only wear them half the year., then they have winter versions at another £40 per item.

It's a huge money making scam but keeps the school's snobbery alive and kicking years after the uniform should have been downsized and made more affordable to middle income parents.

You do have a choice to choose a different prep school though.

The parents’ must want some element of the snobbery though - or they’d have voted with their feet.

Local prep school to me had a brown uniform. For over a hundred years, barely changed. It was HIDEOUS. Falling numbers, and part of the revamp was a move to navy!

If private schools have expensive and / or impractical uniform, parents do have a choice. Not so your state catchment school when all the others are full and anyway have similar uniforms.

My old school used to require:

Branded jumper
Branded pe polo shirt
Branded pe socks (£3)
Branded tie (£4)

Total cost about £35.

Now they require all of the above but with branded skirts and trousers and shirts and tracksuit bottoms and tops and shorts and rugby shirts. Which seems really quite unfair, unnecessary and unacceptable.