To think school uniform policy should be enforced?

[Runoverbyllamas]

Otherwise what’s the point?
Why bother to have a uniform, state it in detail online and in welcome packs, and then say nothing when kids aren’t wearing correct uniform?
We’re talking a state school with nothing needing to be logo, supermarket brands are fine and the colours are easily available.

A friend has had enough because she made sure her kids were dressed correctly and then others in the class were wearing leggings, trainers, wrong colours etc, and her kids were getting cross about it. On approaching the Head all she got was ‘be glad you can afford to get the correct uniform’. The kids who hadn’t were in premium brands ffs! Plus my friend actually saved to make sure she had the right things, she doesn’t have a lot of money to spare.
The school PTA also does preloved at very small cost to parents, so there’s just no excuse.
One of the more annoying parents of the kids in trainers told her that ‘PFB doesn’t like school shoes’ as if that’s a good enough reason.
This has been going on for at least a year now, and friend is getting more and more frustrated that nothing is being addressed.

AIBU?

1. Uniform must not be used to weed out certain groups of children. Clearly some governing bodies seem to be doing this, given the high cost of their uniforms.
2. Uniforms should not be creating income for schools via exclusive deals with suppliers.
3. Uniforms should have only a very small number of specific items - 2 in my view. Tie and badge to sew/iron on blazer - no kilt skirts, piped trousers, logo PE kit etc. Rest should be generic so can be purchased anywhere.

4, trainers - tricky, as they are worn for PE so there is no way of disguising who has what cost of shoe. Ultimately it is up to parents to bring kids up to be less focused on brands. Mine gets one pair of current style trainers from JD sports and not the very expensive ones. The second, back up pair are from sports direct - I just march him in and say pick some. There is no way I’m buying two pairs at full price. He doesn’t ask for the latest sports clothing because he’s not really that bothered but I wouldn’t buy it if he was unless it was for his birthday. DS1 who is a student does get some stuff which for me is way too dear but it’s his money or Christmas gift and he don’t grow out of it. I’m very fortunate that both my DC have been in friendship groups where buying expensive stuff for kids is not done so there’s no competition from their friends and they just ignore the few in the class who do have £180 trainers.

@Jemand

Of course there are some DC who are unable to wear uniform for health reasons.

But the vast majority of DC are perfectly capable of wearing a blazer or doing up their top button.

Clearly most DC don’t want to wear uniform. I’m sure DS didn’t particularly want to wear shorts and long socks all year round in year 5.

But that was his uniform and he understood that it wasn’t a choice and got over it.

My DC all know the school’s (and my) expectations and that there will be consequences if they don’t meet them.

But I'm not happy that they say black trousers etc, and half the school wear grey. Oh come one, who cares? I honestly could not care less if a child I don't know wears a grey trouser.

Then why bother saying black in the rules? If that's what it says, then that's what should be done. It's pretty simple.

What annoys me about dds uniform is the fact that's its navy and every shop near me sells cheap uniform that's black or grey so I had to order online.

@inappropriateraspberry

Then why bother saying black in the rules? If that's what it says, then that's what should be done. It's pretty simple.

You sound like my eldest when he was about ten, this sort of stuff used to drive him wild

God your ‘friend’ would hate our school. We have an optional uniform! Some children come in fully kitted out, others go the whole or primary without so much as a polo shirt. It’s inclusive, lovely, relaxed and more child focussed. One of many reasons we chose this school over all the other (uniform wearing) primaries!

@CarryOnNurse20

God your ‘friend’ would hate our school. We have an optional uniform! Some children come in fully kitted out, others go the whole or primary without so much as a polo shirt. It’s inclusive, lovely, relaxed and more child focussed. One of many reasons we chose this school over all the other (uniform wearing) primaries!

With this type of crazy liberal attitude these kids are surely headed straight off the rails

@lannistunut mines only 5 but I’ll let you know in a few years . FWIW I prefer (and DC doesn’t mind) uniform as it prolongs the life of nice clothes and we just get cheap supermarket stuff. I do wonder how they cope at 11 because all the secondaries are typical blazer/shirt/tie etc. Must be a shock to the system!

Sounds like my DD's school and I love it.

They have a uniform but in reality it's 5 colours anything goes.

I don't see how girls in black leggings isn't uniform? They're comfortable, practical, cheap enough that they can be replaced over a skint knee, and they don't need to change for PE. Oh and zero ironing.

Same with trainers - their feet grow so fast you're buying school shoes + trainers for them playing out when you could just buy trainers and replace them when they're well worn / outgrown. Plus, again, easy to run, comfortable, practical in most weather?

I would send my kids in like this even if the head said otherwise. Luckily our head sent an email out in the summer saying the most important thing is seeing the kids back smiling and not to worry if families are struggling right now, send them in whatever you have.

She's brilliant. Truly understands the needs of the children and that people have different circumstances within the community.

. It's a leveller and helps to disguise the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

I don't buy this argument at all. Not when half the kids have logo'd jumpers and the other half have Asda ones.

Even if not... you can tell. Kids can tell.

And even if they can't tell, it'll be because they're too big or small or fat or skinny or the colour of their hair, skin, teeth, or the fact they're scratching their heads or never bring snack, or they're not allowed to play GTA, or they're not on tiktok, or they didn't get a new school bag at the start of term, or they're a teacher's pet / 'bad boy'.

Like you said, it's a sticking plaster that does nothing to treat the problem.

And it's extra expense, usually uncomfortable and impractical, and if your kids are at the park after school, it's two sets of washing every day because they want trainers and leggings so they can climb and run. And if your kids aren't at the park but go to their dads every weekend, it's having a drawer full of 'weekend clothes' needed for the 6 / 2 week holidays, that never get worn because they're always in uniform or house clothes.

I've always stuck to the uniform rules, but after the last year or so when the uniform and expensive school shoes I paid out for barely got any wear due to lockdowns and self isolation when school bubbles burst, I've gone for cheap black Primark leggings and trainers this year. Leggings technically aren't allowed but most of DD's friends also wear them.

But that doesnt mean a uniform always has to be a bad thing. Honestly lots of children genuinely do like it, they love to match their friends, emulate older children whom they admire, and feel "part of a team", recognisable and included.

This really is adult fantasy. Look at it the other way - do you really believe that children in no-uniform schools feel deprived and don't feel part of the school? If they love it so much, why don't they stay in uniform in the holidays and at weekends?

They should scrap uniforms and then it wouldn’t be an issue.

Saying uniform doesn't always have to be a bad thing is just not a valid reason for imposing all that expense on parents and the amount of teaching time UK schools lose enforcing uniform rules. For some children it's an incredibly bad thing, notably those with sensory problems or whose parents can't or won't afford it so they're wearing worn-out, ill-fitting uniform throughout their school career. And especially those who find themselves being punished for something that they can't control.

What worried me most of all was the idea of the "branded" hoodie which is the only kind of hoodie you can wear on school premises so that the Premises staff can easily identify any intruders. (Their words not mine!) WTAF?!!!

That's hilarious. As if any intruder who wanted to pass himself off as a pupil couldn't get hold of a branded hoodie with the greatest of ease. At any given time there would probably be several just lying around the school for the taking.

Personally I'm in favour of uniform but that's not the point.

If a school isn't going to enforce a uniform policy they shouldn't have one.

[quote inappropriateraspberry]@Jemand I'm not saying all uniform policies are right, and I don't agree with expensive logos on all items, but basic uniform of correct coloured trouser/skirts, white shirt, correct coloured jumper and black shoes isn't hard to do. Schools shouldn't be draconian and as long as all pupils have clean, smart uniform there is leeway in having expensive logoed stuff. My children's school is happy for you to wear a plain blue jumper and that's fine. But I'm not happy that they say black trousers etc, and half the school wear grey. Black is sold ina ok the local supermarkets/shops. [/quote]
You get relatively little argument from me here, @inappropriateraspberry. My view is that we should abolish uniform, but if we must have some then it should be more or less along the lines you envisage, provided of course that the "correct coloured jumper" is something that parents can pick up easily in supermarkets, M&S etc - and provided that schools allow quite a hefty degree of leeway. And NO school logos. But it seems to me that rather than making a fuss about allowing only black trousers, it would be much better to say black/dark blue/grey. Similarly shoes should offer a similar choice with small manufacturers' logos allowed.

@GreenLakes

The DC’s school have a very strict uniform and are also very strict about how it is worn.

Top buttons done up, tie covering top button, shirt tucked in, shoes polished and blazers and jumpers on at all times unless a teacher gives permission is the expectation.

Things like coats and bags all have to have the school logo.

Detentions are given for non-compliance. It think it’s great- everyone looks smart and there are clear standards.

The DC do sometimes get annoyed- DS1 wasn’t even allowed long trousers at his prep until year 6. But I do think a strictly enforced uniform policy is beneficial overall.

But what if you can’t afford to buy all that school branded stuff?

You think they should give detention to a kid who's:

1. Got themselves up alone (because all adults are passed out)

1. Got dressed in whatever smells least (because there's no one doing their washing, and even if there was the electric's been cut off again)

1. Choose to go to school (because there's no one who cares enough to make them)

Ok, that won't be the situation for all the kids, but it most likely will be for some of them. You can't enforce rules for some and not others without causing resentment, and effectively painting a poor sign on the kids who don't get pulled up for uniform.

Good for the school, prioritising the kids education and well-being over the schools image. Your friend sounds like a dick.

@Sprogonthetyne

Agree with what you've said, but I'd add these into your list too, because not all children in these situations have parents who can't/won't care for them -

1. Got themselves up alone (because all adults are passed out or are out at work because they can't afford not to be)

1. Got dressed in whatever smells least (because there's no one doing their washing, and even if there was the electric's been cut off again) or put on what's available because their parent(s) can't afford to, or don't have the time to, replace something broken, on demand, just like that

1. Choose to go to school (because there's no one who cares enough to make them or the parent who cares very much, again, is out at work because they don't have an option not to)

My DD was punished for having a parent who couldn't drop everything at a moment's notice to appease school uniform rules.

Logos need to banned, unless can be sewn one

If we're going to have uniform, and I would far rather we did not, then it should be:

100% available from high street/supermarket suppliers. Abolish single suppliers completely.

Logos to be made available in sew on or iron on form and at cost.

28 working day grace period for things that involve parents needing to replace worn out/outgrown items to allow for working parents and those who cannot afford to buy until next pay day.

6 month lead time for any uniform changes, and all pupils to be allowed to wear previous uniform if in final year of school.

Breach of the above rules to result in immediate OFSTED with inevitable outcome of Requires Improvement status at least.

Expensive uniform is essentially selection by wealth via the back door and is absolutely unethical.

Some people live on a parallel universe.

£100 Nike trainers ?

I think the most expensive ones you can buy in JD are £65, my DDs are £45. And they actually last. Unlike the Clarks I used to get sucked into buying for my eldest before I wised up and realised it's a complete false economy. They're £45 for the buckle type ones which are no good in winter so need to be replaced with £60 boots.

You can go to Asda etc and spend £20 on those ones, but quality is always more important with shoes (and coats) since it's the one thing they wear every day. And they still need trainers anyway?

So £45 for "designer brands" or £20 + £20 for supermarket brands or £45 + £45 + £60 for higher quality shoes.

It makes zero sense.

Look we all know that in the vast majority of cases, the school with shit discipline, unenforced rules and parents who don’t give a crap are not exactly producing great results. They’re typically sink schools where children come from deprived backgrounds, but the entire education they get just reinforces that with low expectations, low results and no chance of getting anywhere in life.

This is BS ime. I'm in one of those mixed deprivation areas and for years people have fought tooth and nail to get their kids into the stricter Catholic school (in Scotland, it's local school or local Catholic school).
They have homework while ours have none.
They have logo'd bookbags while ours have none.
They have an enforced uniform policy of logos and no leggings or polos or trainers while ours have none.

This year the shit discipline primary scored better than the disciplined one, scoring almost double for "listening and talking".

I wonder why that is?

Could it be that the school providing the better nurturing environment for primary school children is perhaps better at producing children who can analyse, understand, critique, debate, participate in group discussions confidently, listen, evaluate, present reasoned and logical arguments etc than the school churning out the next generation of worker bees who don't question the authority of The Rules?

I'd rather have a child who questioned the premise and thought about the logic than a child who followed along blindly because someone decided that was the way it is.

We need to get away from this thinking that school is to mould you into the exact type of employee big business wants, and that's the only definition of "getting somewhere in life".

@Maverickess

Apologies if I have offended, I was only really giving one example, but you are right to point out that there could be several reasons why a child genuinely can't to come to school in uniform. Non non of which are the child’s 'fault', so totally inappropriate to punish for.