Rigid school uniforms

[Waitrosedisaster]

I've just had the usual letter from my child's secondary school, where it outlines all the dos and don'ts surrounding school uniform for the next academic year.

Is anyone just absolutely sick of the outdated concept of strict uniforms? The nitty gritty details of 'only black or brown hair bobbles', 'no bows on socks', 'all clothes including p.e kit must have the school logo'. Why? Just why? My personal favourite this year is the following 'any piercing other than single lobe piercings will be removed immediately, regardless of when piercing was obtained'. Also, nail varnish and shellac will also be removed immediately? Wtf?

School uniforms (other than being used as a money making scheme) were originally used for purposes not to dissimilar from uniforms for prisons, or mental health units. They were used to strip away a person's individuality and make them more likely to conform and obey as they are effectively 'uniform'. It's such an outdated concept and I find it bizarre that schools are able to even dictate which (overpriced) shops the uniform must come from.

I hear arguments from teacher friends about how uniforms are better for low income families, but are they really? Unless the parents do not work, are they even able to claim money off uniforms?

Anyone else agree?

I couldn't disagree more. I think children need lower level boundaries to kick against whilst remaining within the more important boundaries.
I think children need to learn that sometimes they have to do as they are told and fit into societal norms.
I think there is no great problem getting the right colour hair bobbles or socks without bows and parents that allow this allow a metaphorical finger up at the school staff.

It is about the only thing a school is allowed to enforce, no wonder some schools are inflexible about this. Some children have parents who will not accept that their child ever is wrong or misbehaving in school, and options for any form of reasonable discipline are limited.

Where I do agree with the OP is about single sourcing or expensive items of uniform that are hardly worn.

That does seem to be going too far. Isn't there new legislation that covers this?

I do like a strict uniform policy but I like uniforms in general. I'm sick of seeing holes in tights and girls' butt cheeks so I'm all for regulation skirt length although I'd get rid of skirts completely and then it's not an issue. Teens will always push the boundaries though and find ways to express themselves. It's part of being a teen. The stuff about bobbles and bows is madness.
Our school have changed to Under Armour branding for PE and yes it looks great but it's so expensive and unnecessary.

Someone wise will be along with that legislation I'm sure.

Completely agree. We have the no bows on socks, in fact short socks only no knee length -or opaque black tights, no scrunches only bobbles, single style of permitted pants for girls, regardless of body type, particular style of collar. Sick of it. Then they have the check to change the uniform next year so we’ll have to buy new. All complaints fell on deaf ears.

You can have rules about clothes to stop inappropriate dressing - you don’t need uniform in secondary schools to address it.

Uniform costs an absolute fortune. It’s disgraceful. And we can afford it!

I agree. I come from a non-uniform country and never understood the whole concept behind it in modern times.

The whole "there will. be no brand competition" is useless, it's just transferred to phones, trainers, bags and whatever else they find to compare. It already started in Y5 for DD.

Not only do I think they are overpriced, out lovely blazer. is. over £80 and can only be dry-cleaned. Often uniform doesn't take different body shapes into account.

A neighbouring school insists on shirt and tie for girls, I often see older girls who have a larger boob size and it just looks not just uncomfortable but also so unflattering. I feel sorry for them (being one with such boobs as. well and anything high neck is a nightmare, not talking about gaps in the buttons.)

A simple dress code should be enough and I doubt it will be more work. to enforce than the constant emails about skirt length. I have a dresscode at work, for example, I. am not allowed to have. bare shoulders and skirts/dresses have to be knee length. I somehow survive finding suitable clothes. on my own.

All the secondaries around here insist on only dark coloured coats, which is brilliant when you have kids with long journeys to get to school. Who needs them to be seen?

It does drive me crazy as I have a child with sensory needs, so is going to be out through hell every day for the sake of this. Given how casual most offices are these days I don’t understand why schools are ever more draconian.

I don't understand why they need branded PE uniform that you can only buy from one designated supplier and it costs far more than basic unbranded stuff you can buy from the supermarkets, M&S etc. They only wear it once a week.

For my teen, it comes to £65 for a skirt, polo, socks, leggings and a hoodie. They say the leggings and hoodie are optional, but they do PE outside in the cold weather so it's not really optional.

The more rigid rules normally evolve due to pupils (& their parents) pushing the boundaries.

• so loose cut trousers become skin tight leggings
• hair ties become the gigantic bows that were in fashion a few years back
• skirts become shorter and tighter so that underwear is on show when walking up stairs

At which point schools either redesign and mandate uniform, or give up.

Like it or not, we live in a country that 'expects' school uniform.

Personally I'd stick with clear smart every day uniform, but not be so precious about PE kit which for many pupils is worn for about 2hrs per week. If you're not in a team then a white t shirt and some shorts/skorts/jogging bottoms is sufficient.

Given how casual most offices are these days I don’t understand why schools are ever more draconian.

However many jobs do often require a uniform:

• airline pilot
• shop worker
• vet nurse
• railway worker

to name a few.

Bonkers rules
Our school specifies a logo school blazer and a school tie and the colour of skirts/trousers. You can buy the other clothing from wherever you want as long as its black/grey and white shirts

There are no rules over socks, bobbles, nail polish or hair colour and style. Those things don't affect the ability to learn.

To be fair it would be a fucking nightmare to police every day.

And I agree with TeenMinus

I think statistically schools with a stricter uniform policy perform better so that’s probably why.

I don’t really have an issue with it but do have an issue with the price of the bloody stuff. My DS starts secondary in September and his PE kit alone cost me almost £100.

There's little point in school uniform unless everyone looks exactly the same!

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me (apart from the bobbles!) but then I was at school in the 70s/80s when we had boundaries. And it was only a comprehensive, nothing posh.

I wonder if any thought to school uniform is given to:

1. Pupils with disabilities and/or neurodivergent.
2. Cost - can most of the uniform be made up from generic items?
3. Punishment for uniform - status of uniform may not be something entirely under a student's control.
4. Practicality for activities and environment - fewer things make me angry than layers of polyester in a heatwave or people struggling with unsuitable footwear in bad weather.
5. Sexist dresscodes - what exactly will happen if girls wear trousers or boys wear skirts?

Don't underestimate the effect that useless uniform rules can have a disproportionate effect on mental health - it is one fewer thing you cannot control when you are a teen when you are already having to go to school and not have control over whom you are with.

To those who agree with school uniforms, why? What purpose do they serve? They do not assist with learning, they don't help students concentrate. They serve no purpose at all. A general policy of nothing too short/low cut etc would suffice.

I remember being in secondary school in the mid 00's and our headmaster used to walk around with a ruler, measuring girls heels. If it was found to be even a little too high, they would get detention. I under sky scrapper heels aren't practical from a health and safety perspective but teachers who enforce rules to that extent are in my opinion, control freaks who enjoy the power

Ive never agreed with school uniforms. And I disagree that there are better for low income families! Kids from low income families either dont have the uniform, the wrong version of it, or an older scruffier version.

I went to school in the 1950s when regulations were not so draconian. Because we were a low income family my mother sourced my uniforms from second hand markets and army surplus stores. I felt ashamed. I would have been laughed at had my grandmother not stepped in and provided the money for the appropriate garments.

Parents should form an action group and push back hard for a much cheaper generic uniform which can be sourced from supermarkets.

It's just crazy. My daughter does all kind of sports in school and her branded (£30 a go) school gym leggings get holes in quite quickly. She must've gone through half a dozen or so pairs in a year and is threatened with detention if she doesn't get new ones.

I agree with you. A secondary school is a huge expense and worry for low income families. There are many ways of identifying a child's background even with a uniform. Things also got lost or damaged causing even more aggro.

If you have your own clothes , you don't need to spend 200+ or replace overpriced garments from one or two shops.

I also think heads can get very petty over uniform rules, often at the expense bigger issues. It's often used as a smokescreen, I find.

I know children can be competitive about fashion but they'd soon get bored. It wouldn't be like non uniform day everyday and it works in other countries well enough

The "better for low-income families" argument is nonsense, unless the school is giving them away for free. It may be true that uniforms are cheaper than giving in to a child's every whim when it comes to designer clothes and whatnot. It's not true that a week's worth of uniforms costs less than a week's worth of perfectly appropriate casual clothes that you can get secondhand or at cheap retailers. That's what the comparison should actually be here.

I wouldnt mind a uniform that was cost effective and practical.
I found the plus side at primary was zero thought into what to wear and it washed well and actually was cheap apart from the logo jumper which was still only £12. It also kept their home clothes nice.

Secondary is a whole different level of expensive stuff that doesnt wash well and isnt practical for the weather conditions or level of light for large parts of the year.

@TeenMinusTests

Given how casual most offices are these days I don’t understand why schools are ever more draconian.

However many jobs do often require a uniform:

• airline pilot
• shop worker
• vet nurse
• railway worker

to name a few.

Yep, and the same applies in the US and Canada where kids don't wear uniforms.

Children don't need to wear uniform to school to learn about wearing uniform as an adult.

I disagree with uniform. However if there is one it should be easily accessible and affordable.

This single supplier branded stuff needs to go. There's nothing you can achieve in a 35 pound logo blazer that you cant do in a 10 pound asda one.

Uniform.has become a way to price out people schools don't want. So instead of these children being evenly distributed across all schools and able to be supported better they attend the same 2 or 3 schools and get lost in the crowds amongst others with competing needs.

Schools need to stop the sexust policies where boys can wear 5 pound asda trousers but the girls have to spend 20 quid on a skirt ( let's face it girls school trousers don't fit very well most thr time )

All this naming the back.of your pe kit shirt needs to go too. Its incredibly wasteful that chloe from next door can't have your y shirt that's only been worn a few times and is in perfect condition unless she changes her name to anne by deedpoll. Wtf is that about?

Why can't they just have a little badge/pin to signify houses. Why does it have to he coloured piping or logos that again means you can't pass down to anyone else.

I wish they would ban all thee petty rules that make perfectly good items seemingly unusable and forcing u into the school shop purchase.

Unless no other country produces pilots drs paramedics then the need fir a uniform at 25 In chosen professions then 4 years olds don't need to be in shirts and ties.

Bonkers.

I think statistically schools with a stricter uniform policy perform better so that’s probably why. ah - I see. You mean that if you have a low performing school and you institute a strict dress code, performance will increase markedly?