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Is anyone just absolutely sick of the outdated concept of strict uniforms?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 It's such an outdated concept and I find it bizarre that schools are able to even dictate which (overpriced) shops the uniform must come from.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

What about the schools in Europe, Canada and North America - the majority don’t have a school uniform but have high achieving schools (nephews and niece went to schools in these countries).

[quote GreenLakes]@Parker231

Both myself and DH are in professional roles and are expected to dress accordingly.

We’d both be marched straight to senior management if we turned up in shorts![/quote]
GreenLakes - I am senior management in a global corporate finance organisation. I have no problem if any of my teams attend work in shorts or jeans. I judge by the quality of their work not by their outfit.

@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.

A key difference is that a uniform at work is supplied - you don't have to fork out for it, and you can even claim tax relief on the cost of cleaning it.

They need to have a clear differentiation between lounging around at home and a working environment

Why? Mine works better at home than at school. Why isn’t comfort the priority? I lecture in fashion history. I find some of the posts on here just bizarre. Like they are stuck in the 1950’s

We live in a casual age in terms of dress. It’s the schools that are out of step not the workplaces. People need to move with the times. Work dress is much more relaxed than even 15 years ago. Schools need to keep up!

The main key to enhance learning would be comfort. So not tight polyester trousers or scratchy blazers. Just jeans/leggings and hoodies is what they need.

I agree with uniforms and can't get my head round why any parent thinks their princess should be allowed to go to school dressed like a hooker if they so wish.

I can’t get my head around why you think there are only 2 alternatives!

You all knew that kids would be required to wear a uniform before you became pregnant with them so why the mock outrage?

Seriously? So you think people shouldn’t have children if they don’t like school uniforms! In any case, many parents would have seen their local school changing from a simple polo shirt and sweatshirt combo to a more formal, expensive blazer-heavy uniform between pregnancy and their child attending. And I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the extent of the expensive uniform PE kits!

We would have consciously avoided schools where the children wore jogging pants after nursery age. They need to have a clear differentiation between lounging around at home and a working environment

Isn’t that learned behaviour though, associating smart formal trousers with schoolwork and joggers with lounging?

If they wore joggers to school you could dress them in something else at home to make it seem different eg leggings/jeans/yoga pants or joggers in a different style/colour?

I don’t see how children being comfortable sitting, standing, climbing (yes our school has an adventure playground and they wear uniform in it) could possibly hamper learning? Unless we teach them that formal and uncomfortable= work.

@Parker231

What about the schools in Europe, Canada and North America - the majority don’t have a school uniform but have high achieving schools (nephews and niece went to schools in these countries).

But just think what those poor non-uniform school kids could have achieved if they'd been lucky enough to wear scratchy polyester uniforms to learn in!

Girls can easily turn school uniform into a hooker outfit if they want to. At my school girls wore mini skirts to the top of their thighs, platform shoes, wonderbras under tight white button up shirts, heavy make up. Staff tried to police it constantly and failed. I remember girls being hauled out in assembly and shouted at for too short skirts. Girls being made to remove eye makeup and nail varnish in front of the class. It didn’t stop them.

Exactly. Going to a non-uniform school, that issue was pretty rare due to the lax dress code. The gist was as long as your clothes didn’t show anything inappropriate (undergarments) or say anything inappropriate you were fine. They didn’t care about nail polish, piercings, or what colour hair you had. A friend of mine had 13 piercings, 6 on one ear and 7 on the other and she was an honour roll student from primary through secondary.

A shirt with inappropriate words one would have to wear inside out.

Trousers sagging (mainly boys), a padlock would be placed on them to hold them up (you would have it removed at the end of the day) or expected to wear gym shorts or joggers (we were allowed to pick our own gym clothes as long as they were appropriate for sports and met the dress code).

Low-cut or tight-fitting tops, you would have to wear your PE shirt, borrow something from a friend, or wear a coat/jacket/cardigan for the rest of the day. If you didn’t have any of that, you could either call your parents to bring you something, purchase one from the school (£6-8, which you can pay either that day or at the end of the year) or go through the lost and found. If it was a one-off, school was more inclined to let you borrow one (had laundry facilities) or if they knew of your family’s financial situation.

There was no way you would be sent home. However, if you were a repeat offender, your parents would be contacted for a meeting and you would serve a Saturday detention.

The pro-uniform people just go "la la la" and stick their fingers in their ears when anyone asks them how come schools in other countries manage perfectly well without uniforms, or asks for any evidence that wearing a uniform magically makes children behave better.

The pro-uniform people just go "la la la" and stick their fingers in their ears when anyone asks them how come schools in other countries manage perfectly well without uniforms, or asks for any evidence that wearing a uniform magically makes children behave better.

And manage to ignore that an enormous number of jobs and careers are not dependent on wearing blazers, kilts, ties, or skirts of a requisite length. The industry I work in is largely made up of small companies (up to 20 people) and self employed. One of my clients owns several shopping centres as well as other businesses. He wears jeans and trainers most days. I can think of one person who regularly wears a suit and tie.

The head teacher of my DC suggested children would look after aka not lose their uniform if it was new and branded!! because obviously no one (adult or child) ever loses expensive things!

@LemonRoses

We would have consciously avoided schools where the children wore jogging pants after nursery age. They need to have a clear differentiation between lounging around at home and a working environment.

Jogging pants are for sporting activities. Primary aged children run around, play games, do outside learning, do activities on the floor. Jogging pants are entirely appropriate for those activities.

Exactly. Going to a non-uniform school, that issue was pretty rare due to the lax dress code. The gist was as long as your clothes didn’t show anything inappropriate (undergarments) or say anything inappropriate you were fine. They didn’t care about nail polish, piercings, or what colour hair you had.

Yes - my kids' school dress codes were a one-line sentence. Something like no offensive phrases and no hats. They do have to wear closed-toe shoes in labs and workshops.

Turns out kids can learn just as well with multiple piercings, green hair, ripped jeans and flip flops on as they can in uniforms, and teachers get to focus on stuff like teaching rather than policing how many earrings Alexis is wearing.

@lazylinguist

The pro-uniform people just go "la la la" and stick their fingers in their ears when anyone asks them how come schools in other countries manage perfectly well without uniforms, or asks for any evidence that wearing a uniform magically makes children behave better.

Not at all. It’s about self selecting social groups, for us. You look at the schools (such as many free schools) that attract middle classes and aspirational cohorts and one means of silent selection is through strict uniform policy. The parents likely to support blazers, ties correctly knotted and uniform coats are also likely to be parents who enforce other boundaries. That results in cohorts who have similar standards and attitudes towards school. As a parent, I’d want my children in a school where they had peers that had same ambition and parents that supported them to realise their ambition. Attitudes to learning start very young, achievement is started at nursery level and grows with the children.

The uniform itself is broadly irrelevant, but the culture underneath is very important. Where nobody wears uniform, it’s clearly not the same. Germany notably doesn’t encourage the wear uniforms but it does have a very differentiated school system at secondary level.

If you need to look at whether or not a school enforces a strict uniform policy to ascertain which is the right school then a) your system is broken and b) you're not very good at judging schools.

*Not at all. It’s about self selecting social groups, for us. You look at the schools (such as many free schools) that attract middle classes and aspirational cohorts and one means of silent selection is through strict uniform policy.
The parents likely to support blazers, ties correctly knotted and uniform coats are also likely to be parents who enforce other boundaries. That results in cohorts who have similar standards and attitudes towards school.
As a parent, I’d want my children in a school where they had peers that had same ambition and parents that supported them to realise their ambition. Attitudes to learning start very young, achievement is started at nursery level and grows with the children.

The uniform itself is broadly irrelevant, but the culture underneath is very important. Where nobody wears uniform, it’s clearly not the same. Germany notably doesn’t encourage the wear uniforms but it does have a very differentiated school system at secondary level*

2 very very middle class secondaries near me. One has no uniform, one has a very relaxed uniform where earrings, hair styles , make up etc are allowed.

My dd goes to the second one. I don’t support outdated blazers and stupid uniforms. Parents are very very keen and ambitious for their children. Uniform seems to make no difference.

As a parent, I’d want my children in a school where they had peers that had same ambition and parents that supported them to realise their ambition

That describes my DD’s school perfectly. But very very relaxed uniform.

The worse the school the tighter the uniform in my 25 years teaching experience.

My daughters secondary school sanctioned (after the first lockdown) that on days where they had PE they must wear PE kit with blazer. They were allowed to wear plain joggers or leggings in addition to pe kit.

Around Easter we got a shirty letter saying how disappointed they were that kids had come in with joggers or leggings with sports logos (not allowed) and hoodies (definitely not allowed) and that could we as parents ensure they had the correct kit, this might mean buying online from the school sanctioned shop. Well duh. The shops were closed at the time the letter was sent so yes we would have to buy online!

I found it strange on one hand the letter had also detailed what hard work it was to implement all the ever changing covid protocols (and I have huge sympathy for schools over that) ....but then made extra work for the teachers by asking them to monitor the odd hoodie or nike logo on a pe kit, as if there werent enough actual rules to implement.

And manage to ignore that an enormous number of jobs and careers are not dependent on wearing blazers, kilts, ties, or skirts of a requisite length.

Well quite. And ignore that most of those kids who end up in the best jobs go through several years of university wearing whatever the hell they like. I'm sure the top universities would be most keen to learn that they could improve their results and ensure that students study really hard and don't do stupid stuff by insisting they all wear blazers and ties.

Honestly, it's baffling that people still believe this nonsense. The students from the (strict, Catholic, high-achieving) French school that did an exchange with the school where I used to teach found our students' uniforms hilariously quaint, adorable and pointless. The French kids wore jeans and t-shirts. Somehow they still managed to largely behave themselves and do well at school.

Uniforms do not create good discipline. Some schools which have formal uniforms may have good discipline, but that's not cause and effect.

LemonRoses

Well yes, you are just using uniform as a proxy for social class, cultural capital etc. Even then it doesn't really work though, because lots of schools with what you clearly consider an undesirable demographic have just as strict uniform rules as the leafy, middle class aspirational ones.

Besides, arguably most comprehensive schools cater to a socially very wide range of families. So unless your child goes to a private school or a school in an unusually exclusively aspirational area, they are highly unlikely to only be rubbing shoulders with the kind of cohort you describe.

lazylinguist Yes, but not uniform alone. I think it’s naive to assume uniform doesn’t play a part in selecting cohorts though. Indeed some schools in poorer areas do try to impose strict uniform to improve discipline, it doesn’t take much to determine the difference though.

Most comprehensives really don’t serve a truly comprehensive intake. Certainly faith based comprehensives also have back door selection, as does location.

@LemonRoses - your comments don’t work with respect to other countries where there is no school uniform. Do all these children fail?

DT’s went to a private London based international school with no school uniform. The majority of the pupils went onto either RG U.K. Unis or their equivalents in other countries.

it doesn’t take much to determine the difference though.

What do you mean? The difference in demographic between a school in a poor area and a rich one? No, it doesn't take much to determine it. It certainly hasn't got anything to do with uniform though.

Most comprehensives really don’t serve a truly comprehensive intake. Certainly faith based comprehensives also have back door selection, as does location.

Plenty do have a pretty comprehensive intake. The one my dc go to certainly does. The style of its uniform wouldn't tell you much about it though. It has a blazer and tie etc, like virtually all of the schools in the area. The one local comp that's seen as being particularly posh and aspirational has fleeces instead of blazers .

Look, I've taught for 25 years in schools ranging from rough inner city comp, elite private day school, rural posh boarding school, faith school etc etc and I've seen no evidence that uniform improves anything about a school or tells you anything that useful about a school that plenty of other quite obvious things wouldn't tell you better!

Totally agree. DD should not have to wear a shirt and tie or blazer for that matter. Or black coat when it’s warm. Or formal shoes. They should be comfortable.

What uniforms do:

Piss off teenagers
Make them uncomfortable with how they look
Perpetuate many teenagers' view of school as outdated, stuffy and irrelevant
Devalue genuinely important school rules
Create something else for teachers to tell kids off about
Make kids think that teachers care more about earrings or sock colour than education
Make students disbelieve schools' insistence that they're all about treating students as valued, unique individuals
Persuade some parents a school is good

What uniforms don't do:

Make students proud of being a part of their school and its ethos
Prevent bullying
Improve behaviour
Help learning

Tracksuits are school uniform in China, that bastion of strict school discipline, hard work and ambitious parents. Boys and girls wear the same one.

lazylinguist We’ll have to agree to differ. Some are truly comprehensive, but not many. Those in affluent areas are impacted by independents, those in grammar systems are impacted by direct selection, those in very poor communities are affected by the more aspirational avoiding if at all possible - often by church attendance.

My husband with a longer teaching and headship history than yours would say differently. He chose to bring in stricter uniform standards in numerous under performing schools as one of many changes. He believes very much that it sets a different expectation.

Views will probably always be polarised. Our children’s sixth form required formal suits. Everyone wore them, no debate. Nobody was disadvantaged by so doing.