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Is anyone just absolutely sick of the outdated concept of strict uniforms?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 It's such an outdated concept and I find it bizarre that schools are able to even dictate which (overpriced) shops the uniform must come from.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?

The one I can’t get my head round is the parents that go to Clarks and buy black shoes and they’re not allowed because they look “too much like trainers”. I’m talking about black leather shoes that have a slightly trainerish shape. What’s the issue there?

I can understand some of it, but a lot of it seems completely illogical. Like I say, I’m lucky we don’t have to worry about this but I do feel for parents who have this to deal with.

Piercings tend to be a health and safety issue, they can get caught or pulled ripping them out, not just in PE, but in lots of interactions, even taking science goggles off for instance. Nail polish, heavy make up and jewellery are no goes in catering, so if kids are doing any food tech (or whatever it’s called now) it’s a hygiene issue. Lots of jobs have restrictions on what you can wear, how smart you look, how hair is tied back (or even the colour of your hair. My NHS contract said hair must be in a natural colour range! We won’t mention my distinctly purple hair where on a very hot and sweaty day my long ponytail leaked purple dye down the back of my white tunic…).
That said, I think uniform should be fit for purpose. Shirts and ties in hot summer wear help no one and expensive items with school logos should be banned. A generic, easily available and affordable uniform should be standard.
I get what people are saying about one style/cut of trouser for example not fitting all the girls. Just don’t let them get a job in the NHS then, I don’t know any woman who finds the standard NHS trousers my trust issued, comfortable or flattering!

If it doesn't matter then there's no problem buying a pair of school trousers instead of leggings/joggers/jeans/jeggings etc.

Of course that can be a problem. It means buying an extra set of clothes when what they already own would be suitable, for starters.

If a school has set its uniform then parents who choose to buy items that aren't on it are being ridiculous.

What if they're sending their kids in the only clothes they have because they can't afford to keep replacing school uniform once their kid grows out of it? It's fine saying "well buy second-hand" but that only works if the second-hand shop has your DC's size in the first place.

School uniform is expensive and many families can't afford to keep replacing things at a cost of £20-30 per logoed item - especially when there's a generic version for 1/4 of the cost.

I hate school uniforms, I think they're petty, uncomfortable and pointless. I hated wearing them when I was at school and feel for my dd now being forced to wear clothes she hates.

"School trousers" means that students can find a pair of school trousers in a cut that fits and suits them. There's enough options out there and lots of shops sell school trousers

Not here. The school supplier sells one unflattering for all style of school trousers for girls (and one style of skirt)

Most of the "but why does it matter?" arguments work both ways. If it doesn't matter then there's no problem buying a pair of school trousers instead of leggings/joggers/jeans/jeggings etc.

Because for some kids there is a problem. My twins are perhaps an extreme example but I know plenty of autistic kids in mainstream.

At the moment one of my twins will only wear joggers. If I try to put different trousers on him he will fight to keep them off.

I think policies should be more inclusive personally. The fights that some of my friends who have ND kids have to have every single morning to get uniform on them is awful for everyone, and their learning certainly isn’t helped by the constant sensory onslaught of clothes that are distressing them.

SinkGirl
I always suggest people check their school's uniform policy.

Something being sold in Clarks doesn't mean it's automatically going to be OK. Clarks sell a range of black shoes at back to school time. It's up to parents to check what's OK for their school. If the school says not to have trainers then buying a trainer type shoe was always going be a risk.

Some schools, like mine, accept the slightly more trainer style shoes, so Clarks will sell those. Others schools don't.

I always suggest people check their school's uniform policy.

Which is fine, but lots of parents have no choice about where to send their children. Lots of areas have one high school to choose from, so there's no option to send them elsewhere if you disagree with the uniform policy

SinkGirl
Then that comes under SEN and needs raising with the SENCo so appropriate options can be put in place. We've got students like your twins and they wear joggers in the same colour. It's all approved. Another of my students wears a PE polo top instead of a shirt.

In a 10-11 form entry school it doesn't stop the requirement of buying school trousers being reasonable.

I think reasonable parents sometimes don't realise the impact that unreasonable parents have on schools, which is why it's easier to have simple, clear uniform rules in many cases.

I think it's control for the sake of control. Like a post I read a while back about a man insisting his son collect his dinner immediately after it was made. It had no impact on anything, the kid wasn't eating with anyone, it was just a case of dad being able to make him do something because he's the boss. The way I wore my tie at school did not affect anyone else, a student wearing pink nail varnish doesn't affect anyone's learning. Why do we feel the need to control teenagers and then complain when they're not capable of thinking for themselves when they suddenly turn 18.

Which is fine, but lots of parents have no choice about where to send their children. Lots of areas have one high school to choose from, so there's no option to send them elsewhere if you disagree with the uniform policy
I meant they should check the uniform policy before buying the shoes.

Not here. The school supplier sells one unflattering for all style of school trousers for girls (and one style of skirt
That's because your school has decided to have single or limited supplier uniform.
School trousers can be bought in dozens of shops across the high street. The shops are full of them.

I meant they should check the uniform policy before buying the shoes.

And what if they can't afford new shoes that fall under the uniform policy?

@StrangeToSee

We just don't iron, easy! Shirt is covered by blazer and if it's hot and the blazer is off then the creases drop out. We do own an iron if DS wanted to use it.

I was objecting to polyester or poly cotton as it’s harsh on the skin, cold in winter and hot in summer.

The alternative would be to kit my DC out in pure cotton shirts but yes they would need ironing as pure cotton crumples so much the collars won’t stand up

Definitely don’t let your precious child work in the NHS then. Polycotton tunics and polyester trousers are the norm! Tunics and trousers need to be washed and pressed by staff at home, no laundry service.

And what if they can't afford new shoes that fall under the uniform policy?
Then speak to the school.

Even the most prescriptive school that I'd never want to work in tend to specify black leather or leather style shoes, not trainers.
If someone can afford to buy a trainer style school shoe from clarks then they can afford to buy a black leather or leather style shoe from somewhere else. If for whatever reason they can't then they need to speak to the school as surely if they're unable to buy a pair of uniform shoes then they're not going to want to waste money on a pair of shoes from Clarks that aren't in the uniform?

It can be difficult. I took DS to M&S in year 9 and he said none of the shoes there at the time were suitable. We had to go to John Lewis then Clarks. Then had all the fuss about width and his 'narrow' feet meaning there was less available, when we'd never even bought by width before and been fine.

That's because your school has decided to have single or limited supplier uniform.
School trousers can be bought in dozens of shops across the high street. The shops are full of them.

I know!! But that is the argument from lots of people. Lots of places sell school uniform but schools are increasingly going for branded, logoed or supplier specific uniform that can only be bought from one place. In my area there are probably 4 or 5 high schools. You dont really get a choice (nearest one, or sibling rule) unless you go for a single sex school but all the schools use the same supplier. It's not unique to my DC school.

My dds supplier has been known to regularly send emails saying they will struggle to cater for the demand ( pesky yr 7s needing everything...) twice my dd has had to attend school without the correct pe t shirt as its been " delayed"

If someone can afford to buy a trainer style school shoe from clarks then they can afford to buy a black leather or leather style shoe from somewhere else. If for whatever reason they can't then they need to speak to the school as surely if they're unable to buy a pair of uniform shoes then they're not going to want to waste money on a pair of shoes from Clarks that aren't in the uniform?

Maybe they're buying the black leather trainer-style shoe so that they have one pair for uniform and one for PE, so they don't have to pay for two pairs of shoes at the same time?

I think lots of people have no real concept of how expensive uniform can be for some families and how many schools are very restrictive in terms of where you can buy your uniform from.

When schools start saying "grey trousers - but only in one style and from one shop" it gets ridiculous. It makes NO difference if Josie and Sophie wear two different styles of grey trouser. I'm not sure why people are so insistent that it's vital lol.

Our uniform policy is standard and it’s no different than getting used to workplace rules.

Not sure why children would need nail polish, piercings etc for school so definitely agree with that one. Schools are for education not fashion.

Why not just "wear plain black/grey trousers". Why the need to specify the style? Does it really matter if Josie wears leggings but Sophie prefers something else?

It matters because Josie's mum is loaded and will go and buy expensive branded fancy black leggings with various features indicating they are fashionable and expensive, and Sophie's mum is a lone parent on a tight budget who will have to buy cheap thin ones in Asda, and no matter what anyone says, kids spot the difference and it's an issue, and Sophie ends up feeling crap about her trousers.

Fashion brands don't make tailored style school trousers because they are unfashionable. So they are only sold by supermarkets, m&s, john lewis etc and you honestly cannot tell the difference visually between the different pairs other than perhaps one or other brand comes up slimmer etc so fits a child better etc. The lack of variation & fashion input required means they can be mass produced for low cost.

Not sure why children would need nail polish, piercings etc for school so definitely agree with that one. Schools are for education not fashion.

Nobody is saying they need them, people are just saying that it makes no difference to their education, so why pick battles over it? Wearing nail polish to school isn't going to stop them learning English.

Maybe they're buying the black leather trainer-style shoe so that they have one pair for uniform and one for PE, so they don't have to pay for two pairs of shoes at the same time?

Except plimsolls can be bought for almost nothing, which is why schools require children to have separate shoes for PE.

Ever tried doing cross country In plimsolls

It makes NO difference if Josie and Sophie wear two different styles of grey trouser. I'm not sure why people are so insistent that it's vital lol.

The point is that smart tailored school trousers are available cheaply everywhere. Almost no other style of trouser is. So by specifying that type, they ensure its available to all.